By Tom Rhodes, 9/27/2012
Statists, mostly Democrats and Republicans work under the false assumption, a lie, that if the government doesn't do it, then nobody will. This is a lie, the people can and will do for themselves if the government would get just out of the way.
Consider emergency services like fire/rescue other first responders. Having well trained first responders in a community is necessary, but taxes and the government are not necessary for the people to have safe effective first responders in a community. Statists hate and work at eliminating where the people, not the government, take care of themselves. Right now Hillsborough county and its supporters in the leftist press are denigrating volunteer fire/rescue plans. This is a power grab not actually for the benefit of the citizens. It is trying to force a one-size-fits-all plan of government control on everybody.
The fact is at zero cost to the taxpayer and zero cost to patients in southern part of Hillsborough county basic life-support services are provided by the Sun City Center Emergency Squad. This all-volunteer organization is entirely supported by donations within the community and periodically by community grants. Let me repeat that, at NO COST TO TAXPAYERS OR PATIENTS.
It is a pure fiction that if the government doesn't provide a service that the service will not happen. Covering southern Hillsborough County, highly trained and licensed volunteers went on 6,100 emergency runs, all without billing a patient or taxpayers a single dime. To replace that free service to the community and patients, Hillsborough County would have sent over $4Million and charged each patient.
Even where effective zero cost to taxpayer systems are in place, statists want to eliminate that and institute "better" government provision of those services. They denigrate organizations like the Sun City Center Emergency Squad not because that organization is not doing a good job, but because it is a clear demonstration that we don't actually need the government for everything. Statists cannot allow actual real proof that private charity and the people can take care of themselves. The reality is that many, if not most, of government services could be supplied privately. The problem is control, statists want central control of public services, as it provides a means to control the masses. If the people can and do take care of themselves, it shows that the people don't "need" the government, but worse for statists it means that the government has less power, and less authority. Volunteer fire/rescue also puts more emphasis on local governments, not big county or state or federal agencies. Statists want more control in fewer hands, not distributed control subject to the will of the people.
The call to replace volunteers with "professionals" is not a call to provide better services, it is a call to take away local autonomy and centralize control and make people dependent upon the state not themselves. It should be rejected. The fact is if the government doesn't do it, we the people will; the 440 volunteers at the Sun City Center Emergency Squad are proof.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Reality Check
By Tom Rhodes, 9/10/2012
Morpheus offered the red or blue pill, it didn't make a difference, the choice was not real, the Wachowski brothers pre-determined the outcome. Forget the gloom and doom if Obama is re-elected. The facts don't justify the fears. The reality is that If Obama is re-elected he will not and cannot usher in socialism, collapse, etc. Obama may say his performance was "Incomplete" but the fact is he failed and cannot institute his evil plans. Let's face it his speech at the DNC was not 2008's full of promises, hope and change. In his 2008 campaign he routinely made bold promises and predictions like reducing the debt by ½ etc. that he now knows he cannot fulfill. Reality has hit Obama.
In reality Obama delivered the opposite of many of his promises; budget deficit is double not half of what it was; his anti-war promises have resulted in sending more troops to what has historically been the graveyard of empires, Afghanistan, and his use of drone attacks on country after country with which we have not declared war; his often claim to stand in 2008 against the redefinition of marriage resulted in his support of gay marriage; the list of broken promises is hundreds long. But then he met his promises just as well as George H. "No New Taxes" Bush did.
Some facts that are scary include large ammunition purchases by many federal agencies that directly report to the president, and his claiming and asserting that the president has a right to assassinate US citizens without due process; evidence supports the idea that he is trying to keep his promise of a internal "police" force as well armed and funded as the military.
Obama will not be successful in any more of his original big ideas of the 2008 election in his second term. If re-elected his second term will be like that of most other presidents, he will be busy trying to survive and/or cover up the abuses of his first term; Nixon and Clinton were impeached, Regan had Iran Contra, etc. "Fast and Furious" is already outed, but dead border patrol agents made possible by giving guns to drug lords in Mexico as an excuse to blame lax US gun laws is probably small potatoes compared to what we have yet to learn.
Obama now knows a lot that has changed his candidacy this year from 2008: the economy has not and is not improving; Obama knows that far fewer people are working than when he took office; he knows what he's directed or allowed his administration to do, that the people and press don't yet know; he's confident that the Republicans will retain the House, and may that they may gain the Senate, so he knows he won't get the laws he wants; he knows and understands that his entire second term if he wins will be 4 years of a lame duck presidency. His obvious lack of enthusiasm for the job is more than evident.
That may be good for the American People, Romney who clearly is not substantively different than Obama, may be far worse for the USA if he wins. Unlike Obama if Romney wins the next 4 years he won't have a opposing house and will be able to institute his big government, big business, mandates against individual liberty. His behavior at the RNC indicates that he would be just as likely as Obama to rule by fiat. He may even be more aggressive as silencing speech that doesn't support/promote the government as Obama has tried. The only salvation is that if Romney wins the Press will be against him. I'm not sure which would be better for the country, a crony-capitalist president like Romney, with a congress who supports him but who the press actively criticizes and attacks, or a crony-socialist president like Obama without congressional support but who has the support of the press.
At least if Obama wins we have a man in office who by his own admission spent his seminal years smoking pot and bucking the system who if history is any indication, will spend a lot of time on the golf course avoiding exposing himself or his administration to more attacks, not a driven corporatist who will further cronyism at the expense of the average citizen's liberty.
Of course if the GOP or Democrats are foolish enough to allow Gary Johnson into the debates, all bets are off as most people in this country agree with his ideas, and a Johnson win would not only be a boost for all individuals, but would embolden the liberty loving side of the GOP, and RLC and Tea Party side would support his plans, and the liberty loving side of the Democrats who promote civil rights and are against stupid wars would also be an ally. But unfortunately for us he won't be in the debates, and the press won't give the people a chance at real choice. The best we can hope for is a divided government that can't get anything done, because what both Obama and Romney want to do will empower government and the ruling elite's cronies at the expense of the American people.
Ask yourself; are you better off with more liberty or less? Then ask yourself if the past 50 years of more and more government has made you better off than your parents or grandparents? Do you find that unlike the past you need more than one income to support your household? Electing the same corporate cronies, Republican or Democrat, has only proven to increase the size and scope of government and decrease the value of individuals, If we elect either of them again it will produce the same; more laws and regulations limiting liberty, protecting the crony corporate friends of government, and making it harder for the individual. If Romney or Obama wins it won't be much different for the average American, maybe that's why at the last election more people (over 70 Million registered voters) choose to stay home rather than vote for either Obama or McCain, since it wasn't really a choice voting wasn't worth the effort. Goldman Sachs and the big banks are financially supporting both Obama and Romney. You see the ruling elite had a debate among themselves while dining on filet mignon have decided what's best for everybody is tofu. When you crave and need a good steak and you're only offered artificially colored red or blue tofu burgers, does choosing really matter?
Morpheus offered the red or blue pill, it didn't make a difference, the choice was not real, the Wachowski brothers pre-determined the outcome. Forget the gloom and doom if Obama is re-elected. The facts don't justify the fears. The reality is that If Obama is re-elected he will not and cannot usher in socialism, collapse, etc. Obama may say his performance was "Incomplete" but the fact is he failed and cannot institute his evil plans. Let's face it his speech at the DNC was not 2008's full of promises, hope and change. In his 2008 campaign he routinely made bold promises and predictions like reducing the debt by ½ etc. that he now knows he cannot fulfill. Reality has hit Obama.
In reality Obama delivered the opposite of many of his promises; budget deficit is double not half of what it was; his anti-war promises have resulted in sending more troops to what has historically been the graveyard of empires, Afghanistan, and his use of drone attacks on country after country with which we have not declared war; his often claim to stand in 2008 against the redefinition of marriage resulted in his support of gay marriage; the list of broken promises is hundreds long. But then he met his promises just as well as George H. "No New Taxes" Bush did.
Some facts that are scary include large ammunition purchases by many federal agencies that directly report to the president, and his claiming and asserting that the president has a right to assassinate US citizens without due process; evidence supports the idea that he is trying to keep his promise of a internal "police" force as well armed and funded as the military.
Obama will not be successful in any more of his original big ideas of the 2008 election in his second term. If re-elected his second term will be like that of most other presidents, he will be busy trying to survive and/or cover up the abuses of his first term; Nixon and Clinton were impeached, Regan had Iran Contra, etc. "Fast and Furious" is already outed, but dead border patrol agents made possible by giving guns to drug lords in Mexico as an excuse to blame lax US gun laws is probably small potatoes compared to what we have yet to learn.
Obama now knows a lot that has changed his candidacy this year from 2008: the economy has not and is not improving; Obama knows that far fewer people are working than when he took office; he knows what he's directed or allowed his administration to do, that the people and press don't yet know; he's confident that the Republicans will retain the House, and may that they may gain the Senate, so he knows he won't get the laws he wants; he knows and understands that his entire second term if he wins will be 4 years of a lame duck presidency. His obvious lack of enthusiasm for the job is more than evident.
That may be good for the American People, Romney who clearly is not substantively different than Obama, may be far worse for the USA if he wins. Unlike Obama if Romney wins the next 4 years he won't have a opposing house and will be able to institute his big government, big business, mandates against individual liberty. His behavior at the RNC indicates that he would be just as likely as Obama to rule by fiat. He may even be more aggressive as silencing speech that doesn't support/promote the government as Obama has tried. The only salvation is that if Romney wins the Press will be against him. I'm not sure which would be better for the country, a crony-capitalist president like Romney, with a congress who supports him but who the press actively criticizes and attacks, or a crony-socialist president like Obama without congressional support but who has the support of the press.
At least if Obama wins we have a man in office who by his own admission spent his seminal years smoking pot and bucking the system who if history is any indication, will spend a lot of time on the golf course avoiding exposing himself or his administration to more attacks, not a driven corporatist who will further cronyism at the expense of the average citizen's liberty.
Of course if the GOP or Democrats are foolish enough to allow Gary Johnson into the debates, all bets are off as most people in this country agree with his ideas, and a Johnson win would not only be a boost for all individuals, but would embolden the liberty loving side of the GOP, and RLC and Tea Party side would support his plans, and the liberty loving side of the Democrats who promote civil rights and are against stupid wars would also be an ally. But unfortunately for us he won't be in the debates, and the press won't give the people a chance at real choice. The best we can hope for is a divided government that can't get anything done, because what both Obama and Romney want to do will empower government and the ruling elite's cronies at the expense of the American people.
Ask yourself; are you better off with more liberty or less? Then ask yourself if the past 50 years of more and more government has made you better off than your parents or grandparents? Do you find that unlike the past you need more than one income to support your household? Electing the same corporate cronies, Republican or Democrat, has only proven to increase the size and scope of government and decrease the value of individuals, If we elect either of them again it will produce the same; more laws and regulations limiting liberty, protecting the crony corporate friends of government, and making it harder for the individual. If Romney or Obama wins it won't be much different for the average American, maybe that's why at the last election more people (over 70 Million registered voters) choose to stay home rather than vote for either Obama or McCain, since it wasn't really a choice voting wasn't worth the effort. Goldman Sachs and the big banks are financially supporting both Obama and Romney. You see the ruling elite had a debate among themselves while dining on filet mignon have decided what's best for everybody is tofu. When you crave and need a good steak and you're only offered artificially colored red or blue tofu burgers, does choosing really matter?
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Democrat Party Adopts Libertarian Party Stupidity
By Tom Rhodes, 9/8/12
I’ve been saying for quite a while that to be successful the Libertarian Party has to change its image. The image that most of America has of the LP is that of extremist pot smoking adolescent atheistic anarchists. There is hope for the LP, not because we are doing anything to change our image, but at least our convention had real debate and showed that we are a party of principle. The hope comes from the fact that even we in the LP aren’t extreme enough nor stupid enough to boo God. This video is why the Democrats will lose big in November.
Depending on the poll, between 80 and 90% of Americans believe in God. Throwing God out of your political party tells that 80 to 90% that they are wrong. Telling 90% of the population "Go to hell" three times, and having to have your ruling elite ignore your voice, is not smart politics.
The LP tries to have the most open tent of all the political parties; we embrace atheists, anarchists, secessionists, people of all religions, all races, all persuasions, all beliefs, yet denounce God and the beliefs of most of the country. This is part of why the American people don’t trust and rarely elect Libertarians. Political parties exist for one reason; that is to elect people to power to lead/run government.
Functions of Political Parties
So with that in mind why does the LP embrace anarchists? Anarchists are against the very reason a political party exists. This is basic logic that makes the LP appear irrational to most Americans. Adding in terms like minanarchism to try and placate people who believe that government is necessary. The result is adolescent psudointellectual crap that America sees as “anarchist”. Regardless of what Wikipedia says about minanarchism, what most of America thinks can be found in the Urban Dictionary. Extremist ideas will not win elections. Legalizing pot is not an extremist idea . . . . . anymore.
The Democrats denying God three times in this year’s DNC, is extreme, Biblically extreme. That gives hope to the LP as we now look more mainstream than do the Democrats. If the LP is ever to become more than a 1% joke for late night comedians, we have to eliminate those parts of our platform that are not libertarian and extremist. I’ll use one extremely controversial issue, which the Democrats were dumb enough to add to their platform that has been in the LP platform for decades; Abortion.
This is not about being pro-life or pro-choice or promoting either side of the issue. The fact is Abortion is a divisive issue that if you’re a libertarian you must either totally embrace or totally reject, there is no middle ground for Libertarians. The reason is that the heart of libertarian thinking is the idea of basic unalienable rights. The most basic is the right to life. On moral and scientific grounds people can believe that life begins at conception, and that creating a life was started because of a choice, and as such there may be consequences. If you believe life begins at conception, then you have no other choice than to consider abortion as murder of a less developed person by a more developed person. If however you don’t believe that life begins at conception, then you must support abortion as the right to life is embodied by the concept of self ownership, and means that a person can and should be able to do with their body as they see fit, and the government cannot and should not force people to do with their body what the government wants.
As a Libertarian you cannot have any middle ground on Abortion; if you do, you aren’t really a libertarian. This issue divides America more than any other. Picking a side alienates a huge part of the country. The LP should eliminate all references to Abortion in its national platform, to support the pro-choice side of the argument, tells all those who believe that believe life begins at conception that the LP endorses murder. To support the pro-life side tells all those who don’t, that the LP endorses slavery where the government can dictate to women what they can/can’t do with their bodies. The issue is a political loser, and to half the country makes the LP not look like the Party of Principle, but look like the party of anti-liberty; Pro-murder or Pro-enslavement but not pro-liberty. The Abortion plank in the LP platform makes us unpalatable to almost the entire country. The Democrats have adopted this same divisive plank for their party.
We could however rethink the idea of the LP. Rather than being a party whose purpose is to elect people to office to run government, we may consider ourselves something else. The idea of legalizing pot is no longer extreme. It was at one time considered one of these extreme planks of the LP that was justification for dismissing the LP as a place for “Republicans who want to smoke dope.” Legalizing pot is now being considered a mainstream idea. If we in the LP don’t consider it our goal to win elections, then maybe it is to direct and force the country to look at the other parties and their ideas on Liberty and Freedom. This is the direction that many leaders in the LP think should be the purpose of the LP. If not for the LP the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) wouldn’t exist. Our candidates may get only 1% of the vote, but our ideas are permeating society.
From the Cato Institute, to John Stossel, libertarian thinking and ideas are now mainstream. But the more extreme factions of the LP, like embracing anarchists, make the Libertarian Party unacceptable to most of America. To be truly libertarian, we must look at our platform in a far more critical way. Embracing extremist positions that alienate those who love Liberty by embracing what many find as clearly un-libertarian ideas, is not going to make our party stronger. Compare the national LP platform to that of the LPF (Libertarian Party of Florida), and you will see that the LPF platform embraces liberty equally as well as the national platform without embracing extremism. This may be a model for the future and a more powerful LP.
Maybe we should start with the same purpose statement that was used to create this great nation:
” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
I’ve been saying for quite a while that to be successful the Libertarian Party has to change its image. The image that most of America has of the LP is that of extremist pot smoking adolescent atheistic anarchists. There is hope for the LP, not because we are doing anything to change our image, but at least our convention had real debate and showed that we are a party of principle. The hope comes from the fact that even we in the LP aren’t extreme enough nor stupid enough to boo God. This video is why the Democrats will lose big in November.
Depending on the poll, between 80 and 90% of Americans believe in God. Throwing God out of your political party tells that 80 to 90% that they are wrong. Telling 90% of the population "Go to hell" three times, and having to have your ruling elite ignore your voice, is not smart politics.
The LP tries to have the most open tent of all the political parties; we embrace atheists, anarchists, secessionists, people of all religions, all races, all persuasions, all beliefs, yet denounce God and the beliefs of most of the country. This is part of why the American people don’t trust and rarely elect Libertarians. Political parties exist for one reason; that is to elect people to power to lead/run government.
Functions of Political Parties
1) The main purpose of political parties is to join people who hold similar points of view about the government together. These groups work to participate in and influence the government by having its members elected to a government position. Even though many people choose to be associated with a certain party, they don't all share exactly the same beliefs. However, the core beliefs about how government should be run are shared.
2) The United States is a two-party system. Although there are minor parties, none have been able to gain the support needed to win a national election. In America, we have a two-party system where the Republicans and Democrats dominate the political scene. However, there is a growing trend in the United States for voters to be registered as independent. This group votes for different parties in each election. An independent may vote for a Republican for president and a Democrat for senator. The Republicans and Democrats work hard to understand this group of voters.
3) Parties must promote a broad set of core beliefs to reach their members as well as independent voters. Even those voters who choose to be affiliated with a certain party tend to choose candidates who hold a middle of the road view. For these reasons, parties tend to form their platform based on reaching those who hold a moderate viewpoint. This is beneficial to our country in many ways. Most importantly, it keeps our government from taking on an extreme point of view that would appeal only to a small portion of the population.(emphasis added)
So with that in mind why does the LP embrace anarchists? Anarchists are against the very reason a political party exists. This is basic logic that makes the LP appear irrational to most Americans. Adding in terms like minanarchism to try and placate people who believe that government is necessary. The result is adolescent psudointellectual crap that America sees as “anarchist”. Regardless of what Wikipedia says about minanarchism, what most of America thinks can be found in the Urban Dictionary. Extremist ideas will not win elections. Legalizing pot is not an extremist idea . . . . . anymore.
The Democrats denying God three times in this year’s DNC, is extreme, Biblically extreme. That gives hope to the LP as we now look more mainstream than do the Democrats. If the LP is ever to become more than a 1% joke for late night comedians, we have to eliminate those parts of our platform that are not libertarian and extremist. I’ll use one extremely controversial issue, which the Democrats were dumb enough to add to their platform that has been in the LP platform for decades; Abortion.
This is not about being pro-life or pro-choice or promoting either side of the issue. The fact is Abortion is a divisive issue that if you’re a libertarian you must either totally embrace or totally reject, there is no middle ground for Libertarians. The reason is that the heart of libertarian thinking is the idea of basic unalienable rights. The most basic is the right to life. On moral and scientific grounds people can believe that life begins at conception, and that creating a life was started because of a choice, and as such there may be consequences. If you believe life begins at conception, then you have no other choice than to consider abortion as murder of a less developed person by a more developed person. If however you don’t believe that life begins at conception, then you must support abortion as the right to life is embodied by the concept of self ownership, and means that a person can and should be able to do with their body as they see fit, and the government cannot and should not force people to do with their body what the government wants.
As a Libertarian you cannot have any middle ground on Abortion; if you do, you aren’t really a libertarian. This issue divides America more than any other. Picking a side alienates a huge part of the country. The LP should eliminate all references to Abortion in its national platform, to support the pro-choice side of the argument, tells all those who believe that believe life begins at conception that the LP endorses murder. To support the pro-life side tells all those who don’t, that the LP endorses slavery where the government can dictate to women what they can/can’t do with their bodies. The issue is a political loser, and to half the country makes the LP not look like the Party of Principle, but look like the party of anti-liberty; Pro-murder or Pro-enslavement but not pro-liberty. The Abortion plank in the LP platform makes us unpalatable to almost the entire country. The Democrats have adopted this same divisive plank for their party.
We could however rethink the idea of the LP. Rather than being a party whose purpose is to elect people to office to run government, we may consider ourselves something else. The idea of legalizing pot is no longer extreme. It was at one time considered one of these extreme planks of the LP that was justification for dismissing the LP as a place for “Republicans who want to smoke dope.” Legalizing pot is now being considered a mainstream idea. If we in the LP don’t consider it our goal to win elections, then maybe it is to direct and force the country to look at the other parties and their ideas on Liberty and Freedom. This is the direction that many leaders in the LP think should be the purpose of the LP. If not for the LP the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) wouldn’t exist. Our candidates may get only 1% of the vote, but our ideas are permeating society.
From the Cato Institute, to John Stossel, libertarian thinking and ideas are now mainstream. But the more extreme factions of the LP, like embracing anarchists, make the Libertarian Party unacceptable to most of America. To be truly libertarian, we must look at our platform in a far more critical way. Embracing extremist positions that alienate those who love Liberty by embracing what many find as clearly un-libertarian ideas, is not going to make our party stronger. Compare the national LP platform to that of the LPF (Libertarian Party of Florida), and you will see that the LPF platform embraces liberty equally as well as the national platform without embracing extremism. This may be a model for the future and a more powerful LP.
Maybe we should start with the same purpose statement that was used to create this great nation:
” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
Friday, September 7, 2012
Private Charity Bad, Government Taxes Good
By Tom Rhodes, 9/7/2012
A few years ago the Arthur C. Brooks published a study that clearly showed that more a person believed in individual liberty and responsibility they give more to charity and more liberal the less they give. The liberals have been trying to denounce and explain away the evidence. Now yet another study demonstrates that the liberal claim that if you're not liberal and statist you hate the poor is a lie and not based on fact. The latest study published in the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that 14 out of the top 20 states in charitable giving are red, or Republican states, while 12 of the bottom 15 are blue, or Democrat states. Damn, once again the evidence demonstrates that in reality it is the lovers of liberty and fiscal responsibility, who actually put their money where their mouth is and give more to the poor than liberals.
To quote from the Chronicle of Philanthropy, "The nation's sharp political divide can provide a clue to fundraisers. The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama." This study was conclusive that the more religious states tend to give more than the less religious states. Obviously the statist left can't make the obvious conclusion; that the observable, and repeatedly supported conclusion is that liberals are less charitable than others.
USA Today published a leftist egghead commentary about the study saying:
Alan Wolfe is a professed atheist, so his opinion may be biased, but then I'm a professed Christian, and my opinion is biased. Biases aside the facts not my or Wolfe's opinion can and should stand on their own, and the fact is Liberals give less to charity than others. The left believes as Obama said, "You Didn't Build That" implying that private charity (or private business, or private education, or private anything else) without government involvement doesn't count and can't be good. We must accept the falsehood that government bureaucracies are more efficient and delivering "superior" charity than private enterprise.
Consider how much more efficient Medicaid is than private charities, just because it is going bankrupt and is famous for fraud and inefficiency it should be the model. Compare Medicaid to St. Jude's or Shriner's Childrens Hospitals and the evidence is clear. Private charity is more efficient and better uses charity dollars than government.
The facts are clear liberals are liberal with other people's money but stingy with their own.
Libertarians and the liberty loving wing of other parties, believe in the writing of our founding fathers; Madison famously noted "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." Jefferson was clear saying, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Davy Crocket made such a stand a legendary part of his story in the famous "Not Yours To Give" speech. Lincoln was also famous for his position on charity saying, ""In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." The facts are clear America can and does do charity better than government.
Biden and Obama are both famous pikers donating miniscule portions of their earnings every year compared their competition. They seem to think that they and all individuals should not be individually charitable, but should instead give government the job of charity. They think people paying taxes happily is equivalent to giving to charity. They want to ignore the plain words of our founding fathers, ignore and denigrate the massive amounts people privately and voluntarily give to charity, and conclude unless the government controls it, it isn't good and doesn't count.
Liberals, specifically Democrats have made it clear by action and deed. They are not charitable, they don't trust or want the public to be responsible and accountable to each other and to take care of themselves and each other. They want society dependent on government, they want the people to believe and accept that they "belong to government", and as such government should take care of all their needs. They and statist egghead academics what us to believe their interpretation of facts, and we should be thankful to government and leftist egghead academics who can interpret the facts for us, otherwise we might conclude that this study, and the many other studies with similar results, that liberals are cheap bastards whose actions reflect their belief on charity not their words.
God forbid the people feed the poor without government intervention; the poor might not eat a government approved diet, prepared in government approved kitchens, if private charities or individuals were allowed to prepare and distribute food to the poor. That is why NYC has made feeding leftovers from the bar mitzvah to the local hungry a crime. The very idea that a local religious organization would organize a pot luck supper and urge everybody to bring extra because after the event they would use the extra and feed to the local homeless the same food that they just ate themselves is horrendous. The poor and hungry must be protected from what private charities feed might feed them. God forbid somebody's homemade casserole not be nutritionally balanced, and the poor get a delicious homemade meal that didn't meet government specifications. Because only government approved meals are acceptable, and only food prepared in government monitored kitchens is safe enough, and controlled enough to be allowed to feed the poor.
Liberals are clear on their message that private charity is bad, government taxes are good, and the people should not be trusted to do charitable works. We are expected to ignore the facts, we shouldn't be allowed to compare the most advanced and efficient hospitals in the country at places like St. Jude's or Shriner's Hospitals to government run hospitals like the VA. The fact that the more religious and conservative a state is, the more likely the people of that state will donate to charity must be ignored. The statist message must be promoted and the facts must be twisted to support the message: Private Charity Bad, Government Taxes Good.
When a liberal yells or denounces how uncaring of the poor, or how the right hates the poor, it's just a projection of their own cold hart. The evidence is clear, liberals are statists, and cheap bastards who want to use everybody else's money to do "charity" so they won't feel guilty, but won't get off their own wallets and help their neighbor. The evidence is also clear individual Americans can and are better at charity than the government.
A few years ago the Arthur C. Brooks published a study that clearly showed that more a person believed in individual liberty and responsibility they give more to charity and more liberal the less they give. The liberals have been trying to denounce and explain away the evidence. Now yet another study demonstrates that the liberal claim that if you're not liberal and statist you hate the poor is a lie and not based on fact. The latest study published in the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that 14 out of the top 20 states in charitable giving are red, or Republican states, while 12 of the bottom 15 are blue, or Democrat states. Damn, once again the evidence demonstrates that in reality it is the lovers of liberty and fiscal responsibility, who actually put their money where their mouth is and give more to the poor than liberals.
To quote from the Chronicle of Philanthropy, "The nation's sharp political divide can provide a clue to fundraisers. The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama." This study was conclusive that the more religious states tend to give more than the less religious states. Obviously the statist left can't make the obvious conclusion; that the observable, and repeatedly supported conclusion is that liberals are less charitable than others.
USA Today published a leftist egghead commentary about the study saying:
Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it's wrong to link a state's religious makeup with its generosity. People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said. And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college's Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life.
Wolfe said people in less religious states "view the tax money they're paying not as something that's forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they're citizens in the common good. ... I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they're being altruistic."
Alan Wolfe is a professed atheist, so his opinion may be biased, but then I'm a professed Christian, and my opinion is biased. Biases aside the facts not my or Wolfe's opinion can and should stand on their own, and the fact is Liberals give less to charity than others. The left believes as Obama said, "You Didn't Build That" implying that private charity (or private business, or private education, or private anything else) without government involvement doesn't count and can't be good. We must accept the falsehood that government bureaucracies are more efficient and delivering "superior" charity than private enterprise.
Consider how much more efficient Medicaid is than private charities, just because it is going bankrupt and is famous for fraud and inefficiency it should be the model. Compare Medicaid to St. Jude's or Shriner's Childrens Hospitals and the evidence is clear. Private charity is more efficient and better uses charity dollars than government.
The facts are clear liberals are liberal with other people's money but stingy with their own.
Libertarians and the liberty loving wing of other parties, believe in the writing of our founding fathers; Madison famously noted "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." Jefferson was clear saying, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Davy Crocket made such a stand a legendary part of his story in the famous "Not Yours To Give" speech. Lincoln was also famous for his position on charity saying, ""In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." The facts are clear America can and does do charity better than government.
Biden and Obama are both famous pikers donating miniscule portions of their earnings every year compared their competition. They seem to think that they and all individuals should not be individually charitable, but should instead give government the job of charity. They think people paying taxes happily is equivalent to giving to charity. They want to ignore the plain words of our founding fathers, ignore and denigrate the massive amounts people privately and voluntarily give to charity, and conclude unless the government controls it, it isn't good and doesn't count.
Liberals, specifically Democrats have made it clear by action and deed. They are not charitable, they don't trust or want the public to be responsible and accountable to each other and to take care of themselves and each other. They want society dependent on government, they want the people to believe and accept that they "belong to government", and as such government should take care of all their needs. They and statist egghead academics what us to believe their interpretation of facts, and we should be thankful to government and leftist egghead academics who can interpret the facts for us, otherwise we might conclude that this study, and the many other studies with similar results, that liberals are cheap bastards whose actions reflect their belief on charity not their words.
God forbid the people feed the poor without government intervention; the poor might not eat a government approved diet, prepared in government approved kitchens, if private charities or individuals were allowed to prepare and distribute food to the poor. That is why NYC has made feeding leftovers from the bar mitzvah to the local hungry a crime. The very idea that a local religious organization would organize a pot luck supper and urge everybody to bring extra because after the event they would use the extra and feed to the local homeless the same food that they just ate themselves is horrendous. The poor and hungry must be protected from what private charities feed might feed them. God forbid somebody's homemade casserole not be nutritionally balanced, and the poor get a delicious homemade meal that didn't meet government specifications. Because only government approved meals are acceptable, and only food prepared in government monitored kitchens is safe enough, and controlled enough to be allowed to feed the poor.
Liberals are clear on their message that private charity is bad, government taxes are good, and the people should not be trusted to do charitable works. We are expected to ignore the facts, we shouldn't be allowed to compare the most advanced and efficient hospitals in the country at places like St. Jude's or Shriner's Hospitals to government run hospitals like the VA. The fact that the more religious and conservative a state is, the more likely the people of that state will donate to charity must be ignored. The statist message must be promoted and the facts must be twisted to support the message: Private Charity Bad, Government Taxes Good.
When a liberal yells or denounces how uncaring of the poor, or how the right hates the poor, it's just a projection of their own cold hart. The evidence is clear, liberals are statists, and cheap bastards who want to use everybody else's money to do "charity" so they won't feel guilty, but won't get off their own wallets and help their neighbor. The evidence is also clear individual Americans can and are better at charity than the government.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Democrats' Dream for America
By Tom Rhodes, 9/6/2012
The Democrat National Convention isn't over and they're in damage control mode already. They actually showed what the Democrats believe, and said what they meant, but forgot the nation not just loyal statist Democrats was watching. The DNC has shown that the Democrats are not "progressive" but are regressive statists. Wanting the USA to regress to the conditions of other nations where the Ruling Elite dictate to the masses what they should have, what they should think etc. Forget the clear will of even their own delegates. The Democrats want to return to what is the historic norm not to maintain or advance the unique liberty and freedom the USA was founded on, and created to protect.
The Democrats struck God from their platform, and their ruling elders realized this was a mistake. With polls only 3-5% of the population being atheists and a strong super majority being Christian, the DNC ruling elite realized they better put God back the DNC Platform or risk alienating a huge swath of voters. They showed that they don't even respect the vote of their own people. When a voice vote was called to amend their platform and reinstate God into it, even after three calls, there was not a even a clear 50% majority much less the necessary 2/3rds required to amend their platform. No reasonable person could hear those votes and not know that the majority of Democrat delegates to the DNC clearly wanted God removed from the Democrat Party Platform. Because they believed that it was a bad political move (they are not stupid) the DNC ruling elite declared the motion to pass, ignoring the will of the delegates. Their attitude is clear, they the DNC ruling elite, know better than mere delegates, what's best for them. The will of the people in the Democrat party as represented by their duly selected representatives, the voting delegates, be damned.
This is the theme of Democrats. They don't believe as that first President of the upstart third party, the Republicans, proclaimed 150 years ago, that our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The now already infamous video they highlighted at the DNC clearly stated their position "Government is the only thing we all belong to." Wow, we all belong to the government? What a far cry from our Declaration of Independence which clearly states, "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
In fact the entire Democrat National Convention flies in the face of the heart of the Declaration of Independence, which clearly and boldly proclaims that our government was instituted at the consent of the people to protect God given unalienable rights:
The government belongs to us, not the other way around. Democrats obviously don't believe that. Freedom of association, assembly, religion, speech, etc. are all things they want to curtail because those are all based on voluntary relations with each other that generally diminish the power of the ruling elite. At this year's DNC the Democrats have renounced America's experiment in liberty and chosen to regress to the historic norm of man. Self-government, individual rights, limits on government power and authority, are all ideas that gall and restrict what the Democrat ruling elite want. Obama himself said that the problem with the Constitution was it made it hard to get things done. He and the other elitists of the Democrat party, obviously believe that they know what's best for everybody, and want the power and authority to dictate what they believe is plainly in everybody's best interest. Even as to include or not include God in their Platform, regardless of the clearly shouted NO! of the delegates to the DNC.
The DNC and Obama vetted and approved the >video which boldly proclaims that the only thing we all belong to is the Government. Unlike Abe Lincoln, and most of America, Democrats believe that the people are of the government, by the government and for the government.
Most of America realize the government is a necessary evil, but with massive immigration over the past century, an increasingly large part of our country no longer holds the ideas of our founding fathers at heart; that government is limited and has the sole purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and happiness. It is not and never was instituted to provide for the "needs" of individual people. Charity is not and never was a purpose of our government, this change and idea that government and not the people should provide charity is a slow but dramatic shift in our nation. An old Davy Crocket legendary story explains this well, read Not Yours To Give, a letter by the colonel himself for the best understanding of the purpose of our government.
I belong to my church, I belong to the Libertarian party, I belong to several FB groups, etc. I belong to a good number of organizations because I freely and voluntarily choose to belong to those organizations and groups. I do not belong to the government.
I am a US citizen, not a subject of any kingdom, dictatorship, or government. I and each and every other person is sovereign, we don't have a sovereign ruling elite. This is the USA and the government is supposed to be the subject of the people not the other way around. Should our government become too tyrannical and intolerable, it is our right and duty to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, that we deem most likely to effect our safety and happiness. (Yah, I stole that).
I recognize and believe that I belong to my Creator, God. Not man, nor any institution created by man. The bible is clear, God has given me unalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness as I see fit, so long as I don't infringe upon another's pursuit of the same. Thomas Jefferson, with our other forefathers understood this and clearly explained that it was the government's role to protect those rights. Our Constitution clearly proclaims that We the People established the government and that We the People only granted it limited divided powers.
Obviously the Democrats don't believe that, and don't want Americans to believe that. From Pelosi's cry of "Are You Serious" when asked what part of the constitution granted the government the power to force people to purchase insurance, to Obama bemoaning the fact that the Constitution is a flawed document that makes it "hard to get things done" to his declaring that as president he has the right to assassinate citizens without due process and exercising that right; the limits on government powers, and original purpose of our government are not part of the Democrats' belief system.
From dictating to their delegates and party that God, must be in their platform, to telling you that at some point you've made enough to proclaiming "Government is the only thing we all belong to" , the Democrats clearly don't want you to have, live, or believe in the American Dream or the principles America was founded. The Democrats have loudly proclaimed that "We are the ruling elite, shut up and do as we say, eat what we tell you eat, tolerate what we tell you to tolerate, drive what we tell you to drive, ....." They are all about telling the people that the "government knows best" and dictating how you pursue happiness.
As for me I say to the Democrats "NO! I will Live Free or Die!" Yah, Yah, Yah, I know it's not as eloquent as Thomas Paine's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" but what do you expect, I'm a biker who was educated in a public government school, while Thomas Paine was home schooled and received a private education, another thing the Democrats want to outlaw for all but the ruling elite. Obama's actions are a prime example; under his leadership, the Democrats ended the funding that allowed poor inner-city blacks vouchers to go to private schools in DC, while not sending his daughters to the same failed public schools he forces the masses to go. Different education for the ruling elite than the masses; do you see a pattern?
The words and actions of Democrats demonstrates their desire to end America's experiment in Liberty and return to the historic norm of a few ruling elite dictating how the masses live with them living in relative luxury doling out favors and privileges as they see fit to whom they see fit. The idea that people should have liberty, and the resulting benefits/consequences of the liberty is not acceptable to them. They are busybody nanny's who want to treat We the People like children, in some utopian idea that the government can and should make sure everybody has the same. Like mommy's who want every kid to get a trophy regardless of how well they perform; and like mommy's who want everybody to be safe and never do anything dangerous or take a risk, Democrats don't trust and won't allow Liberty; Liberty involves risk; Liberty rewards winners; Liberty allows suffering for risky decisions.
The first colony here in America tried the Democrat's idea, making sure everybody got equal shares of everything regardless of input. That failed, it resulted in starvation and death. The idea that mankind should use the force of government to equalize results of life has been tried over and over again throughout man's history; it always results in the same thing, privation and tyranny. Democrats, their ideas, and leadership, when instituted lead to privation. Look at Detroit, it has been under Democrat control for over 6 decades, it's a former bankrupt shell of what was the 5th largest and most advanced industrial city in America. Superbowl commercial's aside; it is a prime example of the failed policies of the Democrat Party where those policies are fully implemented. If we follow Democrat lead, and institute their policies, what is now the ruins of Detroit is the outcome for all of America.
The Democrat National Convention isn't over and they're in damage control mode already. They actually showed what the Democrats believe, and said what they meant, but forgot the nation not just loyal statist Democrats was watching. The DNC has shown that the Democrats are not "progressive" but are regressive statists. Wanting the USA to regress to the conditions of other nations where the Ruling Elite dictate to the masses what they should have, what they should think etc. Forget the clear will of even their own delegates. The Democrats want to return to what is the historic norm not to maintain or advance the unique liberty and freedom the USA was founded on, and created to protect.
The Democrats struck God from their platform, and their ruling elders realized this was a mistake. With polls only 3-5% of the population being atheists and a strong super majority being Christian, the DNC ruling elite realized they better put God back the DNC Platform or risk alienating a huge swath of voters. They showed that they don't even respect the vote of their own people. When a voice vote was called to amend their platform and reinstate God into it, even after three calls, there was not a even a clear 50% majority much less the necessary 2/3rds required to amend their platform. No reasonable person could hear those votes and not know that the majority of Democrat delegates to the DNC clearly wanted God removed from the Democrat Party Platform. Because they believed that it was a bad political move (they are not stupid) the DNC ruling elite declared the motion to pass, ignoring the will of the delegates. Their attitude is clear, they the DNC ruling elite, know better than mere delegates, what's best for them. The will of the people in the Democrat party as represented by their duly selected representatives, the voting delegates, be damned.
This is the theme of Democrats. They don't believe as that first President of the upstart third party, the Republicans, proclaimed 150 years ago, that our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The now already infamous video they highlighted at the DNC clearly stated their position "Government is the only thing we all belong to." Wow, we all belong to the government? What a far cry from our Declaration of Independence which clearly states, "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
In fact the entire Democrat National Convention flies in the face of the heart of the Declaration of Independence, which clearly and boldly proclaims that our government was instituted at the consent of the people to protect God given unalienable rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The government belongs to us, not the other way around. Democrats obviously don't believe that. Freedom of association, assembly, religion, speech, etc. are all things they want to curtail because those are all based on voluntary relations with each other that generally diminish the power of the ruling elite. At this year's DNC the Democrats have renounced America's experiment in liberty and chosen to regress to the historic norm of man. Self-government, individual rights, limits on government power and authority, are all ideas that gall and restrict what the Democrat ruling elite want. Obama himself said that the problem with the Constitution was it made it hard to get things done. He and the other elitists of the Democrat party, obviously believe that they know what's best for everybody, and want the power and authority to dictate what they believe is plainly in everybody's best interest. Even as to include or not include God in their Platform, regardless of the clearly shouted NO! of the delegates to the DNC.
The DNC and Obama vetted and approved the >video which boldly proclaims that the only thing we all belong to is the Government. Unlike Abe Lincoln, and most of America, Democrats believe that the people are of the government, by the government and for the government.
Most of America realize the government is a necessary evil, but with massive immigration over the past century, an increasingly large part of our country no longer holds the ideas of our founding fathers at heart; that government is limited and has the sole purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and happiness. It is not and never was instituted to provide for the "needs" of individual people. Charity is not and never was a purpose of our government, this change and idea that government and not the people should provide charity is a slow but dramatic shift in our nation. An old Davy Crocket legendary story explains this well, read Not Yours To Give, a letter by the colonel himself for the best understanding of the purpose of our government.
I belong to my church, I belong to the Libertarian party, I belong to several FB groups, etc. I belong to a good number of organizations because I freely and voluntarily choose to belong to those organizations and groups. I do not belong to the government.
I am a US citizen, not a subject of any kingdom, dictatorship, or government. I and each and every other person is sovereign, we don't have a sovereign ruling elite. This is the USA and the government is supposed to be the subject of the people not the other way around. Should our government become too tyrannical and intolerable, it is our right and duty to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, that we deem most likely to effect our safety and happiness. (Yah, I stole that).
I recognize and believe that I belong to my Creator, God. Not man, nor any institution created by man. The bible is clear, God has given me unalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness as I see fit, so long as I don't infringe upon another's pursuit of the same. Thomas Jefferson, with our other forefathers understood this and clearly explained that it was the government's role to protect those rights. Our Constitution clearly proclaims that We the People established the government and that We the People only granted it limited divided powers.
Obviously the Democrats don't believe that, and don't want Americans to believe that. From Pelosi's cry of "Are You Serious" when asked what part of the constitution granted the government the power to force people to purchase insurance, to Obama bemoaning the fact that the Constitution is a flawed document that makes it "hard to get things done" to his declaring that as president he has the right to assassinate citizens without due process and exercising that right; the limits on government powers, and original purpose of our government are not part of the Democrats' belief system.
From dictating to their delegates and party that God, must be in their platform, to telling you that at some point you've made enough to proclaiming "Government is the only thing we all belong to" , the Democrats clearly don't want you to have, live, or believe in the American Dream or the principles America was founded. The Democrats have loudly proclaimed that "We are the ruling elite, shut up and do as we say, eat what we tell you eat, tolerate what we tell you to tolerate, drive what we tell you to drive, ....." They are all about telling the people that the "government knows best" and dictating how you pursue happiness.
As for me I say to the Democrats "NO! I will Live Free or Die!" Yah, Yah, Yah, I know it's not as eloquent as Thomas Paine's "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" but what do you expect, I'm a biker who was educated in a public government school, while Thomas Paine was home schooled and received a private education, another thing the Democrats want to outlaw for all but the ruling elite. Obama's actions are a prime example; under his leadership, the Democrats ended the funding that allowed poor inner-city blacks vouchers to go to private schools in DC, while not sending his daughters to the same failed public schools he forces the masses to go. Different education for the ruling elite than the masses; do you see a pattern?
The words and actions of Democrats demonstrates their desire to end America's experiment in Liberty and return to the historic norm of a few ruling elite dictating how the masses live with them living in relative luxury doling out favors and privileges as they see fit to whom they see fit. The idea that people should have liberty, and the resulting benefits/consequences of the liberty is not acceptable to them. They are busybody nanny's who want to treat We the People like children, in some utopian idea that the government can and should make sure everybody has the same. Like mommy's who want every kid to get a trophy regardless of how well they perform; and like mommy's who want everybody to be safe and never do anything dangerous or take a risk, Democrats don't trust and won't allow Liberty; Liberty involves risk; Liberty rewards winners; Liberty allows suffering for risky decisions.
The first colony here in America tried the Democrat's idea, making sure everybody got equal shares of everything regardless of input. That failed, it resulted in starvation and death. The idea that mankind should use the force of government to equalize results of life has been tried over and over again throughout man's history; it always results in the same thing, privation and tyranny. Democrats, their ideas, and leadership, when instituted lead to privation. Look at Detroit, it has been under Democrat control for over 6 decades, it's a former bankrupt shell of what was the 5th largest and most advanced industrial city in America. Superbowl commercial's aside; it is a prime example of the failed policies of the Democrat Party where those policies are fully implemented. If we follow Democrat lead, and institute their policies, what is now the ruins of Detroit is the outcome for all of America.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Non PC Questions That Need to Answers.
By Tom Rhodes, 9/4/2012
America is not what it used to be. We no longer hold the top spot for freedom in the world? We are no longer the most economically free, nor the most politically free. Answers to some politically incorrect questions may answer when and why the USA is no-longer the home of liberty she once was. Here are some politically incorrect questions we should ask ourselves, our elected leaders, and political candidates.
When did nannyism become the defacto condition of our federal government?
When did merely presenting clearly Constitutional positions become extreme?
When did the press become the mouth piece for the Democrat Party?
Why did our priorities in war change from protecting the lives of troops, killing the enemy, and breaking the will of the country/group which we are at war, become getting good press, protecting enemy civilians, and building nations?
Because democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority, when did recognizing that, and recognizing that we live in a republic whose government is limited and created to protect the rights of individuals become an extreme position?
When did people acquire the right to the labor and property of others without just compensation?
Why are so many politicians willing to sacrifice every citizens liberty for questionable improvements in their security?
When did an idiot hurting himself by using a product for something it clearly wasn't designed become the fault of the product manufacturer? In other words, when did idiots doing idiotic things become the fault of others?
Why is it racist that the NBA lacks black coaches, and not racist that it lacks Asian players?
Why did "old fashioned" ideas like virginity, chastity, loyalty, and believing marriage is a lifelong commitment become passé?
When did being on welfare, getting fee school lunch, using food stamps, and moving back home with mom and dad after graduating college stop being shameful behavior?
When did having 5 babies from 5 different sires become an acceptable career choice? Or why does society support slutty behavior by increasing financial support to women who engage in risky behavior that results in them having more children with neither the familiar nor financial means of raising them?
Why is it acceptable for public schools to teach about Islam but not about the Bible? Or to but it another way, why is Christianity now the only religion that is acceptable to discriminate against?
When did politicians making openly communistic statements about spreading the wealth cease being nails in their political coffins?
When did the right of the public to remain armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government become the right to have a government approved gun for sporting purposes?
Why is the heart of current political debate on government policies about intentions, motives, or personal characteristics of the debater and not about the policy and whether a it works, or if the policy is constitutional or the cost/benefit analysis of the policy. or if it takes away individual freedom and liberty?
When did the age old wisdom delaying purchases until you can pay for them stop being financially sound advice?
When did freedom of assembly and association become unconstitutional?
When did Freedom become a condition Americans fear to face without government holding our hand?
When did the common expression "Don't make a Federal Case of it" cease to be relevant?
Why do we allow congress to write laws that they are exempt?
Why does "racism" now mean disagreeing with Democrats?
Why did it become acceptable for the President to assassinate US Citizens without due process of law instead of grounds for impeachment, removal from office, criminal trial, and imprisonment?
As a society we have always found some way to limit the taxes on our income to about 20% of our GDP regardless of the legal tax rates; why do politicians think that if they change the tax law, we will ever give them any more than that? With decades and decades of history showing that, why do they spend more than they know they will ever be able to collect in taxes?
When did Liberty quit being a sacred cause which America judged her politicians?
America is not what it used to be. We no longer hold the top spot for freedom in the world? We are no longer the most economically free, nor the most politically free. Answers to some politically incorrect questions may answer when and why the USA is no-longer the home of liberty she once was. Here are some politically incorrect questions we should ask ourselves, our elected leaders, and political candidates.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
