I guess I could – by a stretch of my imagination – see how it might appear that conservatives are just that heartless, if I were to think in a vacuum and not take cause-and-effect into consideration.
Unfortunately, liberals seem to think this way – they don’t look at cause and effect, unless by “cause” they mean “what the Republicans are doing wrong” and by “effect” they mean “how we’re going to fix all the problems, right all the wrongs wreaked upon helpless society by those bastard Republicans.” They appear (at least to me) to think more in terms or "right and wrong," and do all they can to legislate the final result, the outcome, forcing benevolence. By contrast, conservatives (who want the same result) believe individuals are capable of entering into agreements to achieve the same result, rather than be subject to a forced result. I've wondered for decades why liberals don't simply impose a maximum price on something, regardless of supply-and-demand. (Oh, wait - they've done that, with disastrous results.)
Just for the record, I don't want to prevent stem cell research; I want to stop or at least severely curtail government funding of stem cell research. I don't want to throw Granny off a cliff; I want Granny's family to take care of her. I don't even know Granny! I don't think dirty air and water is preferable to clean; I simply believe that the impact mankind has on the earth is much less than do those who believe in mankind-caused "global climate change." (Can anyone describe to me how the Medieval Warming Period was caused? Sure couldn't have been due to "gas-guzzling SUVs" belching smoke and fire. Dragons, maybe?) And I believe the earth is much more capable of protecting and cleansing itself than do those who believe we're to blame. Especially in light of clear evidence showing that climate change study results were at least embellished if not downright and blatantly fraudulent, and of clear evidence that temperatures have remained relatively stationery for over a decade.
Look: I’m as concerned as the next guy about society’s problems, but I’m more concerned about individual liberty. I want to be free to contribute to whomever I wish, whenever I wish, however I wish. Unfortunately, I am unable to do that because after taxes are withheld, I don't have enough money left over to contribute to all the worthy causes I follow. It is pure, unadulterated thuggery for government to take money I’ve earned and give it to someone who hasn’t earned it. And let’s not mince words: any system that redistributes wealth is guilty of theft, pure and simple. Fairness is absent, unless you think it's fair to take what someone has earned and give it to someone who hasn't earned it, for no other reason than to equalize the result. If that were morally desirable, then no thief on Earth would ever be convicted ever again. If it were ethically acceptable, then it would be equally acceptable for me to reach into your thousand-dollar bank account and take $250 out to supplement my $500 bank account. Equal outcome justifies the means, right?
I would love to donate money, time, and goods & services to charities worthy to extend a helping hand to those in need; however, that does not mean I’m willing to support those who simply languish in a lifestyle of their own choosing. But the government does that routinely. For the government to take money I’ve earned, call it a tax, pay for their overhead and give what’s left to someone who has made a conscious decision to live off the government’s teat is criminal. The fact that there's so much blatant, unpunished fraud within this system is reprehensible. And contrary to popular opinion, those who are taxed highest in this scenario are the victims. The recipients, by virtue of the fact that they're asking for the government's help in perpetrating this theft, are the greedy ones. This is exactly opposite of how the MSM portrays it.
As compassionate as liberals want to appear, it comes down to a quest for power. If they allow conservative talking points to break through the wall of silence they’ve constructed, all their hope for society will be lost and liberals in turn will lose power they’ve struggled to gain. (Society will gain, but liberal politicians would lose, so by their definition, it's bad.) For example:
- when Republican Congress (during the budget negotiations) wants and offers to fund all parts of the government except the very part that is inherently unconstitutional (the “Affordable” [sic] Care Act), liberals claim we "want old people to die" and we "want to deny people their right [sic] to health care."
- When we say it’s unconstitutional to require that someone engage in commerce, they say it’s no different than requiring someone to buy insurance on their car. (The problem with their argument that it's no different is that it is different. We private drivers are not required to buy insurance on our private vehicle unless we use public roads and interact with other private drivers. If we're driving solely on private property, no insurance, or even license plates, are required.)
What liberals seek, then, is to remain in power. If they have to lie to do it, they will. If they have to engage in ad hominem attacks to do it, they will. (This unfortunately is the nature of politics. By that statement I'm acknowledging that Republicans lie, too. I don't like it, I don't condone it, and I think it should stop. But there it is.) They hurl senseless accusations out left and right, hoping someone will take up the torch and run in whatever media is available. (Listen to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada claim that all he and the American People want is for "Congress to do its job." Then stop to think: why, in fact they are doing their job by debating and voting and funding.) Further, President Obama threatens to default on national debt payments if Congress doesn’t re-open the government. Remember that in fact, 83% of the government remained open, and we collect ten times more in revenue than is required to pay the debt. And in fact, it’s Government's obligation to service the debt before new spending is undertaken. So if Mr. Obama has the means to comply and he’s threatening to default, he’s threatening to break the law. My God: The President of the United States is having a temper tantrum! It's the presidential equivalent of holding his breath till he turns blue.
The media runs with the story of what Obama says; they systematically (in fact, almost appear to deliberately) fail to report on what is required and how his comments are diametrically opposed to the requirement of law.
Liberals are intent on forcing their morality onto the backs of those who have money, for no other purpose than to buy votes. They tax you and me to the brink of poverty to pay for their programs, which are for the sole purpose of making sure the voters who receive government services are beholden to them at election time. "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul."
It's almost a foregone conclusion that any liberal who reads this will come rushing to the defense of liberal policies, asking how anyone can be so unconscionable as to suggest that we don't have an obligation to help those in need. Unfortunately for them, I'm suggesting no such thing. I am suggesting instead that the obligation is personal, not collective, and certainly should not be legislated! I'm suggesting instead that the government has no right to tell me that I have an obligation to another person. I have no claim on anyone else's time, energy or money (as a "right" would confer). The only One who can tell me I have an obligation to another is my God -- and government ain't my god. Government is the antithesis of God. I don't serve the government -- the government is assigned the job of protecting me against the tyranny of those who would do evil to me, and instead they've become the chief proponent of the inherent evil of theft. If I have a "right" to health care (or to any other government program), that means I have the right to obligate another person to provide for my welfare. That is involuntary servitude.
Historically, that's the definition of slavery.
The mainstream media has systematically and intentionally failed in their "free press" obligation to act as the auditor, and they've hidden their failure behind the guise of reporting.
And that, dear reader, is "evil."
No comments:
Post a Comment