The consent of the governed
Hi again. I'd just like to take a moment to post a small blog about me. Many of you have messaged me asking basically where I'm coming from, and it's gotten to be somewhat time consuming for me to answer all of you.
First, most of you assume that I'm a Republican, because I am in serious disagreement with any policy put forward by Democrats. Though that normally might be a valid assumption, I can assure you that I am not a Republican. Yes, I probably vote that way more than any other (except Libertarian), but that's only because I understand that there is only a slight difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats are for anything that increases the size and scope of governmnet, and they want to increase government power RIGHT NOW. Republicans (theoretically) are for smaller government, but in actuality they want bigger government over an expanded time horizon, sort of a Democrat-light.
Read, study, and understand the writings of our founders, and you will see that an unbridled federal governmnet was one of their biggest fears. The Bill of Rights was a prohibition against intrusive government, and in their view 90% of governance should come from the local level. Contrast that with how we operate today. If the founders were able to speak, they would voice universal condemnation of the NEA, the Education Department, HHS, all forms of welfare, and every form of handout that is sanctioned by our current system.
Do I thnk Obama is a socialist? Nope, more like a fascist. For those of you who don't know the meanng but only know the words, here you go: SOCALISM is government ownership and control of the means of production of goods and services and under which there is no private property; FASCISM is government control but private ownership of the means of production of goods and/or services. When you look at what has happened with our financial system, with the bailout of GM and AGI, with the proposed curtailment of pay for executives, we're hard on the track toward fascism. You can say whatever you want; the definitions and the actions speak for themselves.
How would I rate G. W. Bush, you ask? Frankly, I'd say he was an abomination. He did three things mostly right, but he was dead wrong on the rest. He got it on the war on terror...you attack the enemy where they live, rather than allowing them to dictate the place and terms of the fight; it's no wonder we haven't been attacked again (yet). He got it on the tax cuts (and for those of you who persist in calling it a tax cut for the wealthy, I'll have another blog on that). And finally, he understood that our Constitution is inviolate and must be supported by strong justices, to which end he made two good appointments.
An aside here on the justice appointed by Obama...ANY justice who thinks race or gender should play a part in decision making is no friend of the rule of law. Under the rule of law, all people should be held accountable and judged equitably. Under the rule of man, other factors should weigh in. This was the first nation founded on the rule of law, but we are edging further from it with each decision and each law (witness the justice who said that Europoean laws should be considered when making decisions).
Back to Bush: The man was a friend of big government. Big government by definition is involved in the abrogation of the rights of some to the desires of others. Every government intrusion into the private sector invloves the subordination of the rights of the few to the desires of the many. Put simply, if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Peter's vote. I've worked 100 hour weeks, put myself through school, and done it all without asking that government take something that rightfully belonged to someone else and give it to me. What you earn is a part of your life; you spent the time and energy to earn it. No one else should have a say in how your life is used. When you are forced to work for someone else and give him the benefit of the efforts of your labor, you'lre looking at a form of slavery.