Nancy Pelosi is in favor of universal healthcare and massive entitlement spending. Why? So people can spend their lives as unemployed artists. Ms. Pelosi never stops to think about the fact that the nation cannot succeed if everyone chooses a career path that leads to the production of absolutely nothing beneficial to society.
"What do you mean you're out of Burrito Supremes?" the customer asks a Taco Bell cashier.
"Well, our tortilla supplier decided he much preferred life as an unemployed artist specializing in depicting the brutality of the Peloponnesian War though watercolor."
Many Republicans say big business needs cheap labor to be competitive, yet they don't stop to think about the fact that the illegal immigrants are coming to our country with no intention of assimilating.
A similar situation is occurring in Europe where Muslim communities are filled with folks who refuse to fit in with the current culture. Of course these communities produce terrorists who threaten to murder anyone speaking ill of their religion.
And because illegal immigrants, employed by big business, will eventually see to it that they are granted the right to vote; many districts throughout the United States will one-day soon have Nancy Pelosi-types representing them in Congress. These Pelosi clones will then pass so much anti-capitalist legislation that the very same businesses, which once claimed a great need for illegals, will be destroyed. I hope the owners of these entities will appreciate the irony of being forced to permanently close their doors due to the voting habits of the same illegal immigrants they once hired to keep them open.
Being pro-business, I understand the need for reasonably priced labor, but you can't say anything goes when trying to keep your business afloat.
So the basic problem with politicians and so-called community leaders on both sides of the political aisle is their, "sacrifice future generations in order to ensure my own success," mentality.
The economic collapse is unfortunately not causing these people to reconsider their positions. Instead it's causing them to blame the other side and insist that if we went further in their direction, every problem would be solved miraculously.
But in reality the solution is stunningly simple. If everyone were to abide by the law and the government were to get out of our way, prosperity would soon follow.
The New Real World
The new real world is a strange place for individuals who believe in living up to their potential.
The real world was once a term used to describe the often harsh reality young slackers would face once they left the nest.
Now, the real world means something completely different.
Now, the real world is a magical place.
Today it's considered politically incorrect; but in the past, were an individual to say something colossally stupid, a sane person would respond, "Are you some kind of moron!?"
Now you can't ask such rhetorical questions.
The real world prevents it.
In the new real world; no one lacks intelligence. In the new real world; no one goes without the finer things in life because they choose not to work.
The new real world incentivizes young people to remain in the home of mommy and daddy until they're approaching 30 years of age. The new real world looks at people who work their way up the corporate ladder as thieves and oppressors.
The old real world taught us there was great value in proving to business leaders we possessed qualities similar to theirs.
The old real world taught us that life wasn't fair, and setbacks should only push us harder. The new real world teaches us that an oppressor is responsible for every one of our failures, and the sheer volume of oppressors makes moral success impossible.
In the new real world, only wealthy individuals who use their money to support the passage of policies that make it impossible for future generations to duplicate their achievement are considered moral. "I got mine, but it's not fair I leave you with the ability to get yours," they say.
In the new real world, recreation is honorable. Used to be, "I sat on the couch watching television all day," was an admission that would have been met with the same scorn present day Americans face after saying, "I put in thirteen hours at the office on Friday and plan to go in over the weekend."
In the old real word, a person's passion typically led to the betterment of society for all. In the new real world, the productivity of ones desired activities is irrelevant.
The old real world was responsible for creating the greatest country in the history of civilization.
The new real world is causing its collapse.
The real world was once a term used to describe the often harsh reality young slackers would face once they left the nest.
Now, the real world means something completely different.
Now, the real world is a magical place.
Today it's considered politically incorrect; but in the past, were an individual to say something colossally stupid, a sane person would respond, "Are you some kind of moron!?"
Now you can't ask such rhetorical questions.
The real world prevents it.
In the new real world; no one lacks intelligence. In the new real world; no one goes without the finer things in life because they choose not to work.
The new real world incentivizes young people to remain in the home of mommy and daddy until they're approaching 30 years of age. The new real world looks at people who work their way up the corporate ladder as thieves and oppressors.
The old real world taught us there was great value in proving to business leaders we possessed qualities similar to theirs.
The old real world taught us that life wasn't fair, and setbacks should only push us harder. The new real world teaches us that an oppressor is responsible for every one of our failures, and the sheer volume of oppressors makes moral success impossible.
In the new real world, only wealthy individuals who use their money to support the passage of policies that make it impossible for future generations to duplicate their achievement are considered moral. "I got mine, but it's not fair I leave you with the ability to get yours," they say.
In the new real world, recreation is honorable. Used to be, "I sat on the couch watching television all day," was an admission that would have been met with the same scorn present day Americans face after saying, "I put in thirteen hours at the office on Friday and plan to go in over the weekend."
In the old real word, a person's passion typically led to the betterment of society for all. In the new real world, the productivity of ones desired activities is irrelevant.
The old real world was responsible for creating the greatest country in the history of civilization.
The new real world is causing its collapse.
I Demand You Change Your Law Based on My Ignorance: A Letter from Steve Nash
If Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns drafted a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in protest of Arizona's new immigration law, it would probably go a little something like this...
Dear Governor Brewer,
My name is Steve Nash and I am a professional sports hero here in Phoenix. I know my opinion is valued over ordinary Arizonans because I dribble well. I dribble very well. I'm probably the most adroit dribbler Canada has ever produced.
I, with the backing of the entire Phoenix Suns organization, demand you not enact the controversial new Arizona law which specifically calls for the profiling of all Hispanic looking people simply because they are different.
Though I have not read a word of the bill, the media and internet have used scary words in describing hypothetical situations where people with dark skin are hunted down in the streets of Arizona.
If my sincere appeal, which I have thoughtfully based on vague information learned from watching MSNBC, surfing the Huffington Post, and speaking with our Stanford educated backup center Jarron Collins while playing Wii, is not enough to stop you from doing the right thing, Arizona is in deep peril.
I understand that a majority of Arizonans support this deranged new law, and that fact deeply saddens me. However, a majority of southerners once claimed slavery was morally just. In passing this law, you make the pro-slavery crowd resemble ardent supporters of the ACLU.
Only a little bit, does wearing a "Los Suns" jersey ease the discomfort I feel in playing in front of mostly bigoted fans. I am beginning to confuse Arizona with 1940's Germany. Sometimes, when I look to the upper deck, I expect to see Nazi clad spectators staring back at me. I have an inherent desire to advise all Jewish fans in the front row to flee the arena. After I swish a free throw, instead of cheering, I half-expect to hear 18,000 people shout in unison, "Heil Hitler!" On the way home, I expect to see a sign indicating Scottsdale is 20 miles ahead and the Arizona branch of Auschwitz is only another 10 down the road.
So please listen to someone who has not actively sought out any specific details contained in the bill and disregard the will of the Arizona people. I know they get upset at hearing that fellow Arizonans have been gunned down by Mexican drug dealers on their own property, but those incidents usually happen a couple hundred miles away from the condo in which I reside during the season. Besides, you don't think my eyes swell with tears after hearing fabricated tales about Hispanic fathers and sons terrorized by police while enjoying a couple scoops at their local ice cream parlor? So, Governor Brewer, please allow the horrific illegal immigration problem that's bankrupting Arizona to persist by preventing the implementation of this bigoted law.
I know it may seem strange to run a state based on the advice of someone who possesses only a modicum of knowledge regarding the thing on which he is advising, but how can a land run on advice from the compassionate be filled with anything other than peace and harmony?
With More Tolerance in My Pinky Finger than You Have in Your Entire Pasty Body,
Steve Nash
Point Guard - Los Suns
Dear Governor Brewer,
My name is Steve Nash and I am a professional sports hero here in Phoenix. I know my opinion is valued over ordinary Arizonans because I dribble well. I dribble very well. I'm probably the most adroit dribbler Canada has ever produced.
I, with the backing of the entire Phoenix Suns organization, demand you not enact the controversial new Arizona law which specifically calls for the profiling of all Hispanic looking people simply because they are different.
Though I have not read a word of the bill, the media and internet have used scary words in describing hypothetical situations where people with dark skin are hunted down in the streets of Arizona.
If my sincere appeal, which I have thoughtfully based on vague information learned from watching MSNBC, surfing the Huffington Post, and speaking with our Stanford educated backup center Jarron Collins while playing Wii, is not enough to stop you from doing the right thing, Arizona is in deep peril.
I understand that a majority of Arizonans support this deranged new law, and that fact deeply saddens me. However, a majority of southerners once claimed slavery was morally just. In passing this law, you make the pro-slavery crowd resemble ardent supporters of the ACLU.
Only a little bit, does wearing a "Los Suns" jersey ease the discomfort I feel in playing in front of mostly bigoted fans. I am beginning to confuse Arizona with 1940's Germany. Sometimes, when I look to the upper deck, I expect to see Nazi clad spectators staring back at me. I have an inherent desire to advise all Jewish fans in the front row to flee the arena. After I swish a free throw, instead of cheering, I half-expect to hear 18,000 people shout in unison, "Heil Hitler!" On the way home, I expect to see a sign indicating Scottsdale is 20 miles ahead and the Arizona branch of Auschwitz is only another 10 down the road.
So please listen to someone who has not actively sought out any specific details contained in the bill and disregard the will of the Arizona people. I know they get upset at hearing that fellow Arizonans have been gunned down by Mexican drug dealers on their own property, but those incidents usually happen a couple hundred miles away from the condo in which I reside during the season. Besides, you don't think my eyes swell with tears after hearing fabricated tales about Hispanic fathers and sons terrorized by police while enjoying a couple scoops at their local ice cream parlor? So, Governor Brewer, please allow the horrific illegal immigration problem that's bankrupting Arizona to persist by preventing the implementation of this bigoted law.
I know it may seem strange to run a state based on the advice of someone who possesses only a modicum of knowledge regarding the thing on which he is advising, but how can a land run on advice from the compassionate be filled with anything other than peace and harmony?
With More Tolerance in My Pinky Finger than You Have in Your Entire Pasty Body,
Steve Nash
Point Guard - Los Suns
I've Been Waiting My Entire Career to Hassle Minorities
Unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware of the fact that Arizona just passed a new law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.
In response to the laws passage, as leftists usually do, President Barack Obama told a tale so far fetched that, upon hearing it, the producers of 24 sarcastically suggested, "It's called reality, Mr. President; you may want to look into it."
Mr. Obama informed us of a nonexistent Hispanic-American man who took his child to an ice cream parlor where he was roughed up by the cops for no reason other than that his skin was brown.
Had Mr. Obama time to elaborate, the story would have gone something like this... "While the Hispanic-American father and his son enjoyed their delicious ice cream, two crooked white cops entered the establishment specifically looking to harass minorities. Immediately, their cold eyes locked onto the eyes of the ice cream consuming father. The police didn't like anything about the man, but they particularly loathed his smile, for they hated to see a Hispanic man enjoying himself in their country. Noticing the rogue policemen, the Hispanic-American man immediately sensed trouble and began trembling in fear. After spitting out a wad of chewing tobacco, the lead cop hiked up his trouser-pants and marched over to the American citizen of Hispanic descent and his son, who by that point had the most adorable little ice cream mustache atop his upper-lip, which perfectly complemented his beautiful brown eyes, which, until that day, had been shielded from our country's inherent racism. 'You look like one-dem eee-legals. You got yo papers, boy?' Crooked Cop number one then asked the father. 'No, sir; I didn't think I'd need any identification seeing as how I'm simply taking my son out for a little ice cream. As you can see, I'm enjoying a scoop of rocky road topped with M&M's while Junior here chose two scoops of chocolate in a waffle cone. My home is two blocks away - I will take you there and show you that I am a law-abiding American.'"
Seconds later, according to our esteemed Commander in Chief, the barrel of a gun is digging into the temple of the Hispanic-American father.
In telling a condensed version of the above story, Mr. Obama first assumes all officers of the law are vile creatures, incapable of anything other than evil.
Any rational human being understands that, prior to the passage of the new Arizona law; officers were not driving around in their cruisers fantasizing about a day on which they could needlessly harass minorities. A partner was not saying to his brother in uniform, as they waited at a stoplight, "Joe, I wish to god there was a law allowing me to exit this vehicle, jump across the hood, and then tackle that Hispanic man teaching his child how to ride a bicycle. Like you, harassing minorities is the sole reason I chose law enforcement as a vocation."
Will there be genuinely immoral police officers who don't abide by the actual law (a law that DOES NOT allow for the questioning of individuals simply because they are non-Caucasian) and racially profile certain Arizonans? Perhaps there will be. But such cops have likely already figured out a way to disregard protocol and dispense their own personal brand of justice.
And, when drafting legislation, you can't factor in fear that an extremely small percentage of the police force may act inappropriately.
By that logic, if a crooked cop framed someone for murder, we'd have to make murder legal. By that logic, we'd have to make everything legal.
Remember when President Obama called the Cambridge Police "stupid" mere seconds after admitting he didn't know specific details regarding their interaction with belligerent Harvard Professor, Henry Louis "Skip" Gates?
Well, any man who automatically stands against law enforcement does not look at new laws in terms of how they'll protect the innocent. Instead, the anti-police look at new laws in terms of how they'll "unjustly" burden criminals.
Opposition to the new Arizona law simply proves that liberals have the desire for millions of foreigners to enter America and immediately be granted the right to vote due to the fact that 98% of said foreigners would vote Democrat.
Liberals don't think about the fact that America can't adequately support six billion individuals. They don't think about the fact that laws are vital to the stability of any society. Leftists don't think about anything other than what deplorable actions are needed to increase the amount of power they wield.
In response to the laws passage, as leftists usually do, President Barack Obama told a tale so far fetched that, upon hearing it, the producers of 24 sarcastically suggested, "It's called reality, Mr. President; you may want to look into it."
Mr. Obama informed us of a nonexistent Hispanic-American man who took his child to an ice cream parlor where he was roughed up by the cops for no reason other than that his skin was brown.
Had Mr. Obama time to elaborate, the story would have gone something like this... "While the Hispanic-American father and his son enjoyed their delicious ice cream, two crooked white cops entered the establishment specifically looking to harass minorities. Immediately, their cold eyes locked onto the eyes of the ice cream consuming father. The police didn't like anything about the man, but they particularly loathed his smile, for they hated to see a Hispanic man enjoying himself in their country. Noticing the rogue policemen, the Hispanic-American man immediately sensed trouble and began trembling in fear. After spitting out a wad of chewing tobacco, the lead cop hiked up his trouser-pants and marched over to the American citizen of Hispanic descent and his son, who by that point had the most adorable little ice cream mustache atop his upper-lip, which perfectly complemented his beautiful brown eyes, which, until that day, had been shielded from our country's inherent racism. 'You look like one-dem eee-legals. You got yo papers, boy?' Crooked Cop number one then asked the father. 'No, sir; I didn't think I'd need any identification seeing as how I'm simply taking my son out for a little ice cream. As you can see, I'm enjoying a scoop of rocky road topped with M&M's while Junior here chose two scoops of chocolate in a waffle cone. My home is two blocks away - I will take you there and show you that I am a law-abiding American.'"
Seconds later, according to our esteemed Commander in Chief, the barrel of a gun is digging into the temple of the Hispanic-American father.
In telling a condensed version of the above story, Mr. Obama first assumes all officers of the law are vile creatures, incapable of anything other than evil.
Any rational human being understands that, prior to the passage of the new Arizona law; officers were not driving around in their cruisers fantasizing about a day on which they could needlessly harass minorities. A partner was not saying to his brother in uniform, as they waited at a stoplight, "Joe, I wish to god there was a law allowing me to exit this vehicle, jump across the hood, and then tackle that Hispanic man teaching his child how to ride a bicycle. Like you, harassing minorities is the sole reason I chose law enforcement as a vocation."
Will there be genuinely immoral police officers who don't abide by the actual law (a law that DOES NOT allow for the questioning of individuals simply because they are non-Caucasian) and racially profile certain Arizonans? Perhaps there will be. But such cops have likely already figured out a way to disregard protocol and dispense their own personal brand of justice.
And, when drafting legislation, you can't factor in fear that an extremely small percentage of the police force may act inappropriately.
By that logic, if a crooked cop framed someone for murder, we'd have to make murder legal. By that logic, we'd have to make everything legal.
Remember when President Obama called the Cambridge Police "stupid" mere seconds after admitting he didn't know specific details regarding their interaction with belligerent Harvard Professor, Henry Louis "Skip" Gates?
Well, any man who automatically stands against law enforcement does not look at new laws in terms of how they'll protect the innocent. Instead, the anti-police look at new laws in terms of how they'll "unjustly" burden criminals.
Opposition to the new Arizona law simply proves that liberals have the desire for millions of foreigners to enter America and immediately be granted the right to vote due to the fact that 98% of said foreigners would vote Democrat.
Liberals don't think about the fact that America can't adequately support six billion individuals. They don't think about the fact that laws are vital to the stability of any society. Leftists don't think about anything other than what deplorable actions are needed to increase the amount of power they wield.
This Just in: Operation Iraqi Freedom was a Slam Dunk
One of the benefits to being a conservative is that you aren't required to lie in order to win political arguments.
But let's pretend for a second that President George W. Bush was forced to lie to the American people as frequently as the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And let's pretend the media went with it...
After all, Mr. Obama claims the bailout bill is not a bailout bill. Despite grainy video evidence where he states the exact opposite, Mr. Obama now insists he does not support a single-payer healthcare system. Do the media question Mr. Obama about these and other discrepancies?
Not for one second.
From 2001 - 2009, what would the media have reported if W. possessed the same hypnotic power?
Not only would they have reported lies as the truth, they would have gone out of their way to campaign for the already-elected president.
Matt Lauer would have undoubtedly announced to millions of early risers, "The United States has officially conquered Iraq and Afghanistan. Though minor skirmishes continue, our military was able to accomplish this awesome feat the very same day on which we attacked each country. Mr. Bush is doing everything in his power to limit the number of civilian causalities and the toppling of Saddam Hussein statues throughout Iraq prove our brave soldiers are viewed as liberators."
Later, on MSNBC, a teary-eyed Chris Matthews would elaborate. "The tingle currently running up my leg is the result of seeing our troops boldly enter Iraq, and the reality that these heroic men and women are inspired by their fearless Commander in Chief."
The mainstream media would have reported that the war in Iraq was won long before Mr. Bush arrived with his infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Regardless of their aggression level, Code Pink and other anti-war protesters would have been labeled by the media as lunatics on the verge of violence. "After the break, we'll ask Dick Morris if Code Pink founder Madea Benjamin could be the next Timothy McVeigh," are words Bill O'Reilly would have used to tease the Factor audience.
The media would have bent over backwards to blame 9/11 on anyone other than George W. Bush, going as far as openly wondering whether or not his political adversaries had anything to do with heinous attacks.
"Though his short stay in the White House makes him blameless for the attacks on America, George W. Bush still had the guts to invade two countries. Of course the international community, whom we protect militarily, will unjustly criticize Mr. Bush for what they deem unnecessary aggression. He didn't start the war on terror, but he'll put his butt on the line to finish it. This is exactly the type of man we need leading America," New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman would have informed his readers.
Of course, with the exception of the "fair and balanced" Mr. O'Reilly, these pundits despised Mr. Bush, making the above scenarios laughably unbelievable. Yet the enthusiasm contained within each fabricated snippet mirrors the actual vigor with which the real mainstream media supports President Barack Obama.
As a conservative, the last thing I want is for the American media to behave in an overtly partisan manner, even if my side benefited as a result.
I just want them to tell the truth.
But let's pretend for a second that President George W. Bush was forced to lie to the American people as frequently as the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And let's pretend the media went with it...
After all, Mr. Obama claims the bailout bill is not a bailout bill. Despite grainy video evidence where he states the exact opposite, Mr. Obama now insists he does not support a single-payer healthcare system. Do the media question Mr. Obama about these and other discrepancies?
Not for one second.
From 2001 - 2009, what would the media have reported if W. possessed the same hypnotic power?
Not only would they have reported lies as the truth, they would have gone out of their way to campaign for the already-elected president.
Matt Lauer would have undoubtedly announced to millions of early risers, "The United States has officially conquered Iraq and Afghanistan. Though minor skirmishes continue, our military was able to accomplish this awesome feat the very same day on which we attacked each country. Mr. Bush is doing everything in his power to limit the number of civilian causalities and the toppling of Saddam Hussein statues throughout Iraq prove our brave soldiers are viewed as liberators."
Later, on MSNBC, a teary-eyed Chris Matthews would elaborate. "The tingle currently running up my leg is the result of seeing our troops boldly enter Iraq, and the reality that these heroic men and women are inspired by their fearless Commander in Chief."
The mainstream media would have reported that the war in Iraq was won long before Mr. Bush arrived with his infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Regardless of their aggression level, Code Pink and other anti-war protesters would have been labeled by the media as lunatics on the verge of violence. "After the break, we'll ask Dick Morris if Code Pink founder Madea Benjamin could be the next Timothy McVeigh," are words Bill O'Reilly would have used to tease the Factor audience.
The media would have bent over backwards to blame 9/11 on anyone other than George W. Bush, going as far as openly wondering whether or not his political adversaries had anything to do with heinous attacks.
"Though his short stay in the White House makes him blameless for the attacks on America, George W. Bush still had the guts to invade two countries. Of course the international community, whom we protect militarily, will unjustly criticize Mr. Bush for what they deem unnecessary aggression. He didn't start the war on terror, but he'll put his butt on the line to finish it. This is exactly the type of man we need leading America," New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman would have informed his readers.
Of course, with the exception of the "fair and balanced" Mr. O'Reilly, these pundits despised Mr. Bush, making the above scenarios laughably unbelievable. Yet the enthusiasm contained within each fabricated snippet mirrors the actual vigor with which the real mainstream media supports President Barack Obama.
As a conservative, the last thing I want is for the American media to behave in an overtly partisan manner, even if my side benefited as a result.
I just want them to tell the truth.
Living for Others
Ask a Democrat what kind of country they want... If they're being honest, they'll tell you that they dream of a land in which everybody lives for everybody else.
"After a visit to the supermarket, you would transport your groceries to the dwelling of someone less fortunate. Then, after returning home, you would discover that an individual with greater means had stocked your pantry full of sustenance."
Conservatives are labeled hateful and cruel simply because we have a burning desire for accountability.
We believe the reason God blessed humanity with freewill is so that everyone could have a chance for success based on their ability and willingness to work.
Finally, after centuries of oppression, there is a country that grants each of its citizens the freedom to achieve greatness. Though this country's foundation has led to unprecedented prosperity, we're vilified for wanting to retain its foundation.
If one person earns a single cent more than his or her fellow citizens, liberals believe the unmatched wealth must have resulted from a broken and unfair system. This is the prevailing wisdom among Democrats despite the fact that Americans who achieve are much more charitable than citizens of countries whose leaders impose laws of utmost fairness.
To the far left, fairness is not achieved until the last person can act without consequence. If you succeed in life, then everyone is rewarded. If you fail, your stability will remain equal to that of individuals who have reached their lofty expectations.
But when the result of success and failure are equal, incentive to strive for greatness is nonexistent, thus resulting in a stagnant society.
The only way America can retain its superpower status is simply by ensuring that each of its citizens has the ability to retain what they produce. That's it. Just allow people to retain what they produce. Though this philosophy sounds too good to be true; it is labeled as disgusting cruelty.
President Obama and his ilk are forcing us to live for those with far less ambition. They are forcing us to hand over our hard-earned money to the government; an entity far less able to use it productively when the goal is assisting others.
President Obama demands our cash, which he will either lose via fraud and inefficiency, or use as a drug to keep the downtrodden coming back for more.
If left in our own bank account, we could carefully choose charitable organizations that help people forever fend for themselves.
And I'm not guessing that, if a majority of our tax burden was lifted, the less fortunate would still have a place to seek help. Americans have proven time and time again that their giving is unmatched.
But like pointing to thousands of countries where socialistic policies have failed miserably; informing Democrats of historical facts has absolutely no impact on their desires.
To them, socialism should work because it sounds good.
But to rational persons on the right, socialism not only sounds horrible; it has proven most ineffective.
Why else would rulers of socialist countries be required to govern using deadly force?
"After a visit to the supermarket, you would transport your groceries to the dwelling of someone less fortunate. Then, after returning home, you would discover that an individual with greater means had stocked your pantry full of sustenance."
Conservatives are labeled hateful and cruel simply because we have a burning desire for accountability.
We believe the reason God blessed humanity with freewill is so that everyone could have a chance for success based on their ability and willingness to work.
Finally, after centuries of oppression, there is a country that grants each of its citizens the freedom to achieve greatness. Though this country's foundation has led to unprecedented prosperity, we're vilified for wanting to retain its foundation.
If one person earns a single cent more than his or her fellow citizens, liberals believe the unmatched wealth must have resulted from a broken and unfair system. This is the prevailing wisdom among Democrats despite the fact that Americans who achieve are much more charitable than citizens of countries whose leaders impose laws of utmost fairness.
To the far left, fairness is not achieved until the last person can act without consequence. If you succeed in life, then everyone is rewarded. If you fail, your stability will remain equal to that of individuals who have reached their lofty expectations.
But when the result of success and failure are equal, incentive to strive for greatness is nonexistent, thus resulting in a stagnant society.
The only way America can retain its superpower status is simply by ensuring that each of its citizens has the ability to retain what they produce. That's it. Just allow people to retain what they produce. Though this philosophy sounds too good to be true; it is labeled as disgusting cruelty.
President Obama and his ilk are forcing us to live for those with far less ambition. They are forcing us to hand over our hard-earned money to the government; an entity far less able to use it productively when the goal is assisting others.
President Obama demands our cash, which he will either lose via fraud and inefficiency, or use as a drug to keep the downtrodden coming back for more.
If left in our own bank account, we could carefully choose charitable organizations that help people forever fend for themselves.
And I'm not guessing that, if a majority of our tax burden was lifted, the less fortunate would still have a place to seek help. Americans have proven time and time again that their giving is unmatched.
But like pointing to thousands of countries where socialistic policies have failed miserably; informing Democrats of historical facts has absolutely no impact on their desires.
To them, socialism should work because it sounds good.
But to rational persons on the right, socialism not only sounds horrible; it has proven most ineffective.
Why else would rulers of socialist countries be required to govern using deadly force?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)