Archive for March 26th, 2010

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on, I can’t believe you.”- Freidrich Nietsche.

This week has been notable as much for what the Dhims have had to say now that they have forced their takeover bill through, as it has for all the lies they told leading up to it, and continue to tell us after forcing us to buy this crap sandwich.

First up, from the “Now the Truth Can Be Told” file, we have John Dingel (D) of Michigan speaking this week on The Voice of the Great Lakes, WJR.

“Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” -John Dingell

Well, he is right.  They have taken a long time to put their socialist agenda into legislation.  But then, without instrumentalism, they never would have managed to get it all, and the idea that what is your is yours and what is someone else’s is yours is like rust.  It never sleeps, and given enough time and inattention, it can consume a good thing.

What?  There is no socialism?  That’s crazy talk?  Wow.  I guess someone should hurry up and tell the Wrong Reverend Sharptongue.

Now, normally I disagree with the Wrong Reverend, but I think he gets this half-right.  I think that Obama is a socialist, and I think that he wanted to be more open about it during the campaign, but he knew he would have far less of a chance of getting elected by stating directly that he was going to impose a tyranny of mediocrity upon this country than if he spoke indirectly about fundamentally changing this country, and vague platitudes about  “hope and change”.  Still, even so, he still slipped and gave us a window into what he was really thinking, which resulted in the “Joe the Plumber” moment, which required the presstitutes to work hand-in-hand with people in the state government who were more than happy to release information that wasn’t theirs to release so they could smear the man who tripped up the most brilliant legal scholar ever to occupy the Oval Office. 

I think the Wrong Reverend knew what we were getting when the least experienced man ever to hold the office was swept into office on a tide of euphoria brought on by white guilt, the naive belief in a post-racial president, and people who wanted desperately to believe in a new, transparent way of politics without corruption and secrecy.  I just don’t believe that everyone who participated in rolling that tide believed we would get what we have today.

“But it’s Al Sharpton!”  you say.  “That clownshoe is an embarrassment to any person of color who doesn’t want to be a victim, or rely on the assistance of government.  How credible is he?”

I understand completely.  How about a U.S. Senator telling us what this was really all about?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Senator Max Baucus:

“This is also an income shift. It’s a shift, it’s a leveling to help lower income Americans. Too often in the last couple of three years, the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much. The wealthier are getting way, way too wealthy.  Wages have not kept up with the increased income of the highest income Americans. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution income in America, because health care is now a right for all Americans and because health care is now affordable for all Americans.” – Senator Max Baucus (D).

Nevermind that sound.  It’s just the collective wail of the Founding Fathers, screaming “What gives any government official the right to determine if some one makes too much or not enough???”

In fact, I think I see Jefferson now, pouring over his drafts of the Declaration of Independence, muttering “I’m positive I did not write “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 confiscation of other people’s property if government thinks they have too much.”

All kidding aside, taking from one to give to another, in whatever form you chose to manifest it…socialism, communism, marxism, simply was not contemplated as an acceptable role of government. 

How do I know?

Aside from their rightful and manifest aversion to government interference in the lives of the citizenry, you need only read the words of the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There would be no need for such a measure if people’s property was government’s to do with as it pleases, and government doing what it pleases with everyone’s things is pretty much the working definition of the -isms that we are dealing with.  And of course, the people under such a system would have no need for rights independent of the government, so the Ninth Amendment would be pointless.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I think it is past time to remind these thieves and robbers that when they cannot be bothered to respect the law of the land, then they no longer have the consent of the governed.

Read Full Post »