Numerous so-called "conservative" pundits have repeatedly bemoaned the fact that many conservative voters at the grass-roots level have "abandoned" the Republican Party. Let's get one thing straight here: conservatives did not abandon the Republican Party. The Republican Party abandoned conservatives. We were the Party of Ronald Reagan, not John McCain. We support lower taxes and less government involvement in our lives. We are single-issue voters, and the issue is freedom.
The Republicans talk about wanting a "big tent". The problem is, they are going about it the wrong way. Most sincere conservatives are never going to vote for a liberal, regardless of the label he applies to himself or the party to which he adheres. Most Democrats are never going to vote for a Republican, no matter how far left of center he travels. The fact is, the Republican tent has never been bigger than it was during the Reagan years. Ronald Reagan delivered a message of freedom, self-reliance, and hope that resonated with voters from both parties and all across the political spectrum. Reagan is the man who said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" He knew the wisest foreign policy was to let other people fight for their own freedom, while we supported them from the sidelines (Nicaragua, Afghanistan). He knew to speak unambiguously, even boldly, and to call out evil when he recognized it. He took his office seriously, yet was both great enough and humble enough to laugh at himself.
After Reagan, we had Bush the Elder. He ignored the lessons of the Reagan era, and engaged in tax increases and an expansion of government with such policies as the 'War on Drugs', new regulations, conflicts in Panama and Iraq, expanded peace-keeping operations, and other trappings of his 'New World Order'. After eight years of further government expansion and encroachment under the Clinton administration, we tried handing the reins back to the GOP, in spite of the disappointment over the lack of follow-through by the Republican congress on their promises in the "Contract With America". Eight years of Bush, the Younger saw some of the greatest expansion of the Federal government since the New Deal with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It also increased the degree of governmental encroachment of civil liberties with the "Patriot Act", and left us fighting expensive conflicts on two fronts. The problem we have encountered is that rather than demanding good candidates who represent our values, many voters have opted to settle for whatever lukewarm mediocrity the Party has decided to place in front of us. Some of the best candidates, in terms of small-government/free-market/pro-civil-liberty/rule-of-law values, have been marginalized, slighted, and ignored. This was particularly true in the last primary.
This begs the question: where is a liberty-loving, small-government voter to go? If the Republican Party wants the votes of Reagan Republicans (a.k.a. libertarians and true conservatives), the Republican Party must represent the values espoused by Ronald Reagan. This is pretty-much non-negotiable. The difference between a Rockefeller Republican and a Democrat is so small as to be meaningless. In fact, there are many who, like me, believe that the United States has evolved into what is basically a one-party system. Voting in an election implies that you sanction and agree to abide by the results of that election, and that you recognize the legitimacy of the winners to make policy. When the only menu choices available are "Big Government - Option D" and "Big Government - Option R", what reason is there for a true conservative (a.k.a. a "classical" liberal) or libertarian to go to the polls? What meaningful difference is there between the Democans and the Republicrats? True liberty-lovers will not vote for big government, higher taxes, and increased regulation of everything except our borders. If the Republiclowns do not want to represent conservatives and libertarians, then conservatives and libertarians will find someone who does. For some voters, the motivation may be nothing more than an act of voting their conscience. For others it may be an attempt to teach the Party a lesson.
In a recent editorial, Laura Hollis asked how that lesson was working out for those of us who refused to toe the party line. I would have to answer that it is, in fact, working out quite well for us. This last presidential election was between two liberal Democrats, one of whom called himself a Republican. On one ticket, we had a big-government, liberal, Democratic senator, with a big-government, liberal, Democratic senator running-mate. On the other ticket, we had a big-government, liberal, Democratic-wannabe senator, with a small-government, conservative, Republican executive running-mate. Small-government voters saw through the Republican Party smokescreen. If you do not think John McCain was a Democrat (or at least a big-government statist), you really need to look at his record in the Senate. He crossed the aisle so many times, his staffers started wearing orange, reflective vests and carrying little, hand-held stop-signs. Electing a good lieutenant in the hopes that the chief executive meets an untimely end is a poor political strategy, unless you happen to live in Ancient Rome.
Had McCain been elected, we would have had four years of a mediocre, bland, left-wing RINO administration. This would have done far more harm to our Republic in the long run as the Republicans in the Congress would have marched in lock-step with the big-government, statist agenda of the POTUS for no other reason than his party affiliation. With Obama in power, there is a lot more foot-dragging in the advance of big government. Not only is there opposition from the usual suspects in the GOP, but several blue-dog Democrats have joined the resistance as well.
More importantly, the rapid push of a statist or socialist agenda by the Obamunists has had the added benefit of actually alerting the frog in the pot. Just look at the level of grass-roots opposition that arisen in the blogs, Tea Parties, and town hall meetings. Americans are rediscovering their love of liberty and limited government, and limited-government politics are enjoying a new-found popularity. We are living the first Chinese curse (and I am doing my best to realize the second curse as well).
Furthermore, the lesson of history clearly demonstrates that the Republican Party can be replaced. When the party was founded in 1854, it was a fringe party made up largely of single-issue voters and focused almost exclusively on the issue of slavery. However, when Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency in 1860, it replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties in the United States. Today, small-government-advocates are interested in many issues like minimizing business regulations, ending the 'War on Drugs', getting the US out of foreign conflicts, preventing further socialist encroachment into the private sector, minimizing or eliminating counter-productive gun restrictions, and so forth. If all Reagan Republicans, libertarians, Constitutionalists, Tenthers, opponents of the Patriot Act, opponents of Obamunist health care, Tea Partiers, and others could find a small-government party to stand behind, and then stand behind that party, they would be unstoppable. As a result, the Republicans, like their predecessors the Whigs, would fade into the dustbin of history.
Ultimately, however, the question is, how should you vote? The "wasted vote" argument is a non-sequitur. Is a vote for a RINO who stands diametrically opposed to everything in which you believe (e.g. secure borders, free-speech, smaller government, gun-ownership, etc.) any less a wasted vote than voting for a third-party candidate who supports your beliefs and values? If anything, I would argue that voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is a wasted vote because it is still a vote for evil. Which of your freedoms is the least important to you? It is like making a conscious decision as to which finger you would prefer to smash with the hammer you are swinging. It is just such voting that has gotten us into our current mess. I would argue that your vote is only wasted if you love liberty and still insist on voting for one of the two major parties.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Sycophant-in-Chief
Once again, our feckless leader demonstrates that there are no limits to his incompetence. On his recent trip to Japan, Obama said, "As America's first Pacific president, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world.” He then proceeded to demonstrate his strength and leadership by groveling before the Japanese emperor. As an aside, I am somehow unable to remember Obama being elected President of the Pacific. I do, however, think it is a good use of Obama’s skills, since plankton need leadership, too.
This unctuous behavior by a President of the United States before the figurehead of the nation we soundly trounced in the largest war in human history is both inappropriate and unnerving. Apparently, the Japanese found it embarrassing and unnerving as well. It is, however, a pattern of behavior begun when he first declared his vassalage to a foreign monarch by showing obeisance to the King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.
Indeed, Obama does stand an excellent chance of inheriting Jimmy Carter’s mantle of presidential weakness and incompetence in the international arena. On the home front, he is currently engaged in a truckload sale on American sovereignty. Between selling our natural and constitutional rights to property and self-defense, Obama continues to push one international treaty or UN accord after another. He simply can not give away US sovereignty and authority fast enough to suit him. And when faced with a decision he actually has the authority to make, he either delegates it to another Czar, or he wallows in indecisiveness.
I do, however, find Obama’s behavior quite perplexing. If Obama does not want the job of being President of the United States, why did he apply for the position? It’s almost like he wanted the really cool office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, without the responsibility that goes along with it. Obama the obsequious internationalist is quite obviously ashamed of America. When speaking to his fellow Muslims, he has done everything short of apologizing for placing the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the paths of the airliners that crashed into them.
Apparently he is embarrassed because we are better than everyone else. Obama is deeply disturbed by the fact that America is always the one nation who steps up to bail out others. Shame on us for rebuilding significant portions of both Asia and Europe, including the countries of our former enemies, following the Second World War. We should be mortified by our conduct during the Berlin Airlift. What arrogance we displayed by not letting the Communists starve West Berlin into submission. Who are we to send more aid to Africa (both publicly and privately) than anyone else in the world? For a list of more reasons to be ashamed of America, refer to “The Americans (A Canadian's Opinion)” by Gordon Sinclair
Obama sees our wealth as greed. He sees our liberty as selfishness. He sees our sacrifice, our courage, and our innovation as arrogance. How dare you work harder than your neighbor? What arrogance to strive for excellence! Become enlightened and follow your Messiah down to mediocrity. In the end, however, I guess America will have to learn to live with the fact that Obama is ashamed of America. After all, the feeling is mutual.
This unctuous behavior by a President of the United States before the figurehead of the nation we soundly trounced in the largest war in human history is both inappropriate and unnerving. Apparently, the Japanese found it embarrassing and unnerving as well. It is, however, a pattern of behavior begun when he first declared his vassalage to a foreign monarch by showing obeisance to the King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.
Indeed, Obama does stand an excellent chance of inheriting Jimmy Carter’s mantle of presidential weakness and incompetence in the international arena. On the home front, he is currently engaged in a truckload sale on American sovereignty. Between selling our natural and constitutional rights to property and self-defense, Obama continues to push one international treaty or UN accord after another. He simply can not give away US sovereignty and authority fast enough to suit him. And when faced with a decision he actually has the authority to make, he either delegates it to another Czar, or he wallows in indecisiveness.
I do, however, find Obama’s behavior quite perplexing. If Obama does not want the job of being President of the United States, why did he apply for the position? It’s almost like he wanted the really cool office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, without the responsibility that goes along with it. Obama the obsequious internationalist is quite obviously ashamed of America. When speaking to his fellow Muslims, he has done everything short of apologizing for placing the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the paths of the airliners that crashed into them.
Apparently he is embarrassed because we are better than everyone else. Obama is deeply disturbed by the fact that America is always the one nation who steps up to bail out others. Shame on us for rebuilding significant portions of both Asia and Europe, including the countries of our former enemies, following the Second World War. We should be mortified by our conduct during the Berlin Airlift. What arrogance we displayed by not letting the Communists starve West Berlin into submission. Who are we to send more aid to Africa (both publicly and privately) than anyone else in the world? For a list of more reasons to be ashamed of America, refer to “The Americans (A Canadian's Opinion)” by Gordon Sinclair
Obama sees our wealth as greed. He sees our liberty as selfishness. He sees our sacrifice, our courage, and our innovation as arrogance. How dare you work harder than your neighbor? What arrogance to strive for excellence! Become enlightened and follow your Messiah down to mediocrity. In the end, however, I guess America will have to learn to live with the fact that Obama is ashamed of America. After all, the feeling is mutual.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Never Ask a Muslim to Kill his Fellow Muslims
The way that Maj. Nidal Hassan claimed that angst over the possibility of having to kill his “fellow Muslims” forced him to kill his "fellow" soldiers is absolutely heart-rending. I can only imagine the pain he must have felt at the horrifying idea of being forced to inflict violence upon “fellow” devotees of “The Prophet”. The agony he must have felt in going through with the obviously difficult decision to gun down his defenseless "fellow" soldiers in cold blood is inconceivable. That same traumatic dilemma plagued Sgt. Hasan Akbar, a Muslim convert who in 2003 fragged commanding officers at a military camp in Kuwait, killing two and wounding 15 others. Akbar said at the time he did it out of loyalty to the ummah, the international community of Muslims.
Unfortunately for Hassan's and Akbar's “fellow Muslims” currently living in Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other ‘Muslim’ countries, their “fellow Muslims” living in the same country do not suffer from the same moral compunction. Hardly a week goes by that the AP does not break at least one story of another Muslim suicide bomber in Iraq or Afghanistan who blew himself up in the local market square. And oddly enough, all, or nearly all of the victims are “fellow Muslims”, rather than we beastly American infidels.
Additionally, it has come to my attention that Muslims also somehow manage put aside their loathing to harm other Muslims when those other Muslims happen to be female. Clearly, putting the word “honor” in front of “murder” makes driving a car over “fellow Muslims”, pummeling them to death with rocks, or hacking their heads off with a scimitar in the public square far more palatable to Muslims. And if they just want to teach their women a lesson, rather than killing them, there are other methods (Warning, Graphic Images). Although there are no statistics to back me up, I would not be surprised to find that more Muslim women had been killed by their “fellow Muslim” fellows, than by US military operations.
In fact, over the last several months, more Muslims in Iraq have been killed by Iraqi Muslims than by Americans. Hey, we may be on to something here. Maybe we should listen to Obama and just "get out of the way". We would probably win the war far more quickly and cheaply if we simply let the Muslims kill each other. Maybe we could even convince them to fly an airplane or two into their own buildings for a change.
So why are Muslims so selective in their squeamishness? It appears that Muslims are only hesitant to kill “fellow Muslims” when the Muslims doing the killing are not getting their marching orders from a lunatic in a turban. Or perhaps it is a proximity issue. It is acceptable for a Muslim to kill a Muslim if they are neighbors, but it is not kosher for a Muslim to kill a Muslim in another country who killed the first Muslim’s neighbors, who may or may not have been Muslim as well. So never ask a Muslim to kill his fellow Muslims. They are perfectly willing to do it without your prompting.
Unfortunately for Hassan's and Akbar's “fellow Muslims” currently living in Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other ‘Muslim’ countries, their “fellow Muslims” living in the same country do not suffer from the same moral compunction. Hardly a week goes by that the AP does not break at least one story of another Muslim suicide bomber in Iraq or Afghanistan who blew himself up in the local market square. And oddly enough, all, or nearly all of the victims are “fellow Muslims”, rather than we beastly American infidels.
Additionally, it has come to my attention that Muslims also somehow manage put aside their loathing to harm other Muslims when those other Muslims happen to be female. Clearly, putting the word “honor” in front of “murder” makes driving a car over “fellow Muslims”, pummeling them to death with rocks, or hacking their heads off with a scimitar in the public square far more palatable to Muslims. And if they just want to teach their women a lesson, rather than killing them, there are other methods (Warning, Graphic Images). Although there are no statistics to back me up, I would not be surprised to find that more Muslim women had been killed by their “fellow Muslim” fellows, than by US military operations.
In fact, over the last several months, more Muslims in Iraq have been killed by Iraqi Muslims than by Americans. Hey, we may be on to something here. Maybe we should listen to Obama and just "get out of the way". We would probably win the war far more quickly and cheaply if we simply let the Muslims kill each other. Maybe we could even convince them to fly an airplane or two into their own buildings for a change.
So why are Muslims so selective in their squeamishness? It appears that Muslims are only hesitant to kill “fellow Muslims” when the Muslims doing the killing are not getting their marching orders from a lunatic in a turban. Or perhaps it is a proximity issue. It is acceptable for a Muslim to kill a Muslim if they are neighbors, but it is not kosher for a Muslim to kill a Muslim in another country who killed the first Muslim’s neighbors, who may or may not have been Muslim as well. So never ask a Muslim to kill his fellow Muslims. They are perfectly willing to do it without your prompting.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Hello, and Welcome To "Notes From Occupied America".
Welcome to "Notes From Occupied America." This is the first in what will hopefully be a very brief foray into the blog sphere. I say ‘hopefully brief’ for two reasons. First, I believe there are a finite number of things one person can say without becoming tedious or redundant, and, second, it is my hope that the spirit of liberty will be reawakened in my fellow Americans, which will render my message superfluous. It is my sincerest wish, however, that this blog will help to fill in a few gaps in the current political debate, win new friends for the cause of liberty, strengthen the arguments of those who are already friends of liberty, and earn me a few more enemies among those who hate, fear, and despise liberty.
In answer to why I chose the name "Notes From Occupied America" for this blog, it is intended to serve as a double entendre. The first meaning stems from my belief that America is currently under occupation by an ideology which is foreign to American values and principles. Americans are, by nature, rugged individualists. You can find a greater variety of examples and methods of expressing individuality here in America than in any other culture in the world. We customize our cars and motorcycles, and we buy vanity plates. We customize our cubicles at work, and even our cell phones. Musically, we invented Jazz, Country, the Blues, and Rock ‘n’ Roll. America is a nation of pioneers, cowboys, explorers, entrepreneurs, inventors, and general risk-takers. Our ancestors left the comfort and familiarity of their homes, communities, families, and friends on other continents to face the unknown, because they valued OPPORTUNITY more than SECURITY. Americans invented the telegraph, the telephone, the phonograph, motion pictures, the steam engine, interchangeable parts, the assembly line, the airplane, the electric light, the artificial heart and numerous other inventions that make our lives better.
In spite of our heroic heritage, there is a malignant and alien ideology that is creeping like a cancer over the nation. That ideology goes by the names of liberalism or progressivism. Regardless of what this leftist ideology is called, progressivism is nothing more than a recycled variation of collectivism or socialism. It is completely antithetical to American values. Progressivism is an ideology of cowardice. Socialism plays upon the fears of those who lack the courage to take responsibility for their own lives and their own decisions. It is characterized by an endemic avoidance of responsibility. According to the progressive ideology, the individual is too weak to take care of himself and too stupid to make her own decisions. Like peasants in the Dark Ages, leftist citizens want to be able to beg protection from all ills, real or imagined, at the foot of their lord protector. In modern terms, that lord protector is the state. Do not dare to do anything for yourself. According to progressives, you are too incompetent. When predatory criminals threaten, do not attempt to defend yourself, you are incapable. Instead, run to the nearest government law enforcement agent for help. You are far too foolish to manage the financial planning for your retirement. Not to fear; the government will provide Socialist Security for you.
Under the progressive ideology, individuals no longer have any meaningful rights. A progressive has no concept of “inalienable rights.” All rights emanate from the government and what any entity may give you, it may also take away (see the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, Article 29 for an example).
Additionally, the most important rights, according to progressives, are those vested in selected groups. Progressives only concern themselves with ‘women’s rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ ‘Hispanic rights,’ 'African rights,’ ‘workers’ rights,’ ‘animal rights,’ etc. If you do not fall into a protected group, you have no meaningful rights. Hate speech codes trump free speech, and anti-discrimination laws trump property rights in the progressive world view.
This is not to say that Americans are incapable of collective action. Americans have a long history of working together. From Colonial militias and Committees for Public Safety, to homesteaders forming wagon trains and neighbors gathering for a barn-raising, Americans have always known how to work together. This is still seen today in many organizations like Habitat for Humanity, neighborhood watch groups, local church charities and veteran’s organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. It is also seen among less formal groups like motorcycle clubs that hold toy runs, and numerous other collections of citizen volunteers who gather, ad hoc, to improve their communities, provide charity, and help others. The point is Americans can and do work together, and they work best when they form voluntary organizations.
The second meaning of the title of this blog stems from the fact that Americans are "occupied" (or, more correctly, preoccupied) by an obsession with the trivial. It is a new spin on the old Roman practice of keeping the masses quiescent by plying them with 'bread and circuses.' We care more about the outcomes on reality television and more about how our local sports teams are faring this season than we do about the legacy we are bequeathing to our children. Our minds are “occupied” with questions of the most insignificant sort. Will the Bulls “three-peat”? Who got kicked off of “American Idol” this week? Instead, we should be worrying about things like how much less freedom our children will enjoy than we do, and how much lower their standard of living is going to be due to the massive Federal debt and the resulting currency devaluation. We know more about the private life of our favorite actor or rock star and more about the statistics for our favorite professional athlete than we do about the political alliances and voting record of our congressman. When we can be bothered to pull ourselves away from the game long enough to go and vote, if we pay attention to the issues at all, it is only to see what is in it for us. We vote for a representative based not on his dedication to protecting our liberties and abiding by the Constitution, but rather on his ability to bring Federal dollars back to his district or on his dedication to increasing our entitlements. Like Esau, we are despising and selling our birthright (liberty), for a mess of pottage (entitlements). Even more despicably, the entitlements we gain are purchased by picking our neighbor's pocket, and we are selling our children into debt peonage in order to provide for our own comforts now.
Again, welcome, and here's to being a thorn in the side of the liberty-haters!
Evil 9,
The Liberty Guerrilla
In answer to why I chose the name "Notes From Occupied America" for this blog, it is intended to serve as a double entendre. The first meaning stems from my belief that America is currently under occupation by an ideology which is foreign to American values and principles. Americans are, by nature, rugged individualists. You can find a greater variety of examples and methods of expressing individuality here in America than in any other culture in the world. We customize our cars and motorcycles, and we buy vanity plates. We customize our cubicles at work, and even our cell phones. Musically, we invented Jazz, Country, the Blues, and Rock ‘n’ Roll. America is a nation of pioneers, cowboys, explorers, entrepreneurs, inventors, and general risk-takers. Our ancestors left the comfort and familiarity of their homes, communities, families, and friends on other continents to face the unknown, because they valued OPPORTUNITY more than SECURITY. Americans invented the telegraph, the telephone, the phonograph, motion pictures, the steam engine, interchangeable parts, the assembly line, the airplane, the electric light, the artificial heart and numerous other inventions that make our lives better.
In spite of our heroic heritage, there is a malignant and alien ideology that is creeping like a cancer over the nation. That ideology goes by the names of liberalism or progressivism. Regardless of what this leftist ideology is called, progressivism is nothing more than a recycled variation of collectivism or socialism. It is completely antithetical to American values. Progressivism is an ideology of cowardice. Socialism plays upon the fears of those who lack the courage to take responsibility for their own lives and their own decisions. It is characterized by an endemic avoidance of responsibility. According to the progressive ideology, the individual is too weak to take care of himself and too stupid to make her own decisions. Like peasants in the Dark Ages, leftist citizens want to be able to beg protection from all ills, real or imagined, at the foot of their lord protector. In modern terms, that lord protector is the state. Do not dare to do anything for yourself. According to progressives, you are too incompetent. When predatory criminals threaten, do not attempt to defend yourself, you are incapable. Instead, run to the nearest government law enforcement agent for help. You are far too foolish to manage the financial planning for your retirement. Not to fear; the government will provide Socialist Security for you.
Under the progressive ideology, individuals no longer have any meaningful rights. A progressive has no concept of “inalienable rights.” All rights emanate from the government and what any entity may give you, it may also take away (see the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, Article 29 for an example).
Additionally, the most important rights, according to progressives, are those vested in selected groups. Progressives only concern themselves with ‘women’s rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ ‘Hispanic rights,’ 'African rights,’ ‘workers’ rights,’ ‘animal rights,’ etc. If you do not fall into a protected group, you have no meaningful rights. Hate speech codes trump free speech, and anti-discrimination laws trump property rights in the progressive world view.
This is not to say that Americans are incapable of collective action. Americans have a long history of working together. From Colonial militias and Committees for Public Safety, to homesteaders forming wagon trains and neighbors gathering for a barn-raising, Americans have always known how to work together. This is still seen today in many organizations like Habitat for Humanity, neighborhood watch groups, local church charities and veteran’s organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. It is also seen among less formal groups like motorcycle clubs that hold toy runs, and numerous other collections of citizen volunteers who gather, ad hoc, to improve their communities, provide charity, and help others. The point is Americans can and do work together, and they work best when they form voluntary organizations.
The second meaning of the title of this blog stems from the fact that Americans are "occupied" (or, more correctly, preoccupied) by an obsession with the trivial. It is a new spin on the old Roman practice of keeping the masses quiescent by plying them with 'bread and circuses.' We care more about the outcomes on reality television and more about how our local sports teams are faring this season than we do about the legacy we are bequeathing to our children. Our minds are “occupied” with questions of the most insignificant sort. Will the Bulls “three-peat”? Who got kicked off of “American Idol” this week? Instead, we should be worrying about things like how much less freedom our children will enjoy than we do, and how much lower their standard of living is going to be due to the massive Federal debt and the resulting currency devaluation. We know more about the private life of our favorite actor or rock star and more about the statistics for our favorite professional athlete than we do about the political alliances and voting record of our congressman. When we can be bothered to pull ourselves away from the game long enough to go and vote, if we pay attention to the issues at all, it is only to see what is in it for us. We vote for a representative based not on his dedication to protecting our liberties and abiding by the Constitution, but rather on his ability to bring Federal dollars back to his district or on his dedication to increasing our entitlements. Like Esau, we are despising and selling our birthright (liberty), for a mess of pottage (entitlements). Even more despicably, the entitlements we gain are purchased by picking our neighbor's pocket, and we are selling our children into debt peonage in order to provide for our own comforts now.
Again, welcome, and here's to being a thorn in the side of the liberty-haters!
Evil 9,
The Liberty Guerrilla
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)