Kermit Gosnell is the abortionist in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who is on trial for his life for brutally taking the lives of innocent babies. He operated an abortion clinic which specialized in late-term abortions, and used several techniques to skirt the limits of the law. But his crime against the state of Pennsylvania is a mere pittance compared to his crime against humanity and the laws of decency. His clinic operated unabated due to a lack of oversight and inspections by the state of Pennsylvania. Babies were born alive and then had their spinal cords cut by Mr. Gosnell or one of his assistants, and in some cases the babies necks were simply snapped in order to bring about death. I will not go into all the other gory details of what was found in the Gosnell house of horrors, I am sure by now you have heard them all, or at least enough to sufficiently turn your stomach for a month.
This case has hardly registered on the main stream media's radar, or for that matter, the radars of any of our so-called leaders in government. There is no question that our President doesn't find this offensive, after all while in the Illinois state legislature, he voted to allow babies born alive as a result of botched abortions, to be killed outside the womb. And while debating on the floor of the United States Senate, then Senator Obama called babies murdered in the womb and then delivered dead by the mother, induced non-viable fetuses. And in a campaign speech during the 2008 presidential election, he compared babies to veneral diseases that one might contract while having unprotected sex.
The complete lack of human decency possessed by the medical personal who perform abortions and the politicians who defend their right to do so, has been demonstrated often in the last 40 years. The fact is that the medical research industrial complex has driven the need for human fetal tissue for everything from helping the struggling immune systems of mice, to feeding the obsession of embryonic stem cell research when adult stem cells are the only ones to have shown any promise of one day helping to cure a multitude of diseases. But abortion is the primary sacrament of the Left, and that is why the Gosnell story has received barely a mention in any of the main stream media outlets.
What I find most disturbing about the Gosnell story is the lack of decency on the part of those who worked for him. Some of his employees witnessed unspeakable acts of brutality and murder for many years and then went home at night and watched cable t.v. and played ball with their kids on the weekends. Not one of them felt that the horror they saw on a daily basis was worth reporting to anyone. The authorities discovered Gosnell's macabre clinic while investigating him for illegally prescribing Oxycontin. And his employees only disclosed the daily horrors in the clinic once they were discovered by law enforcement officials, and charges were being brought. These folks were not being forced to work at Gosnell's clinic at the point of a gun. How does one witness such inhumanity to innocent human beings and have their coffee in the morning, eat a ham sandwich for lunch and go home for dinner every night as if they were just working on an assembly line or crunching numbers in the accounting department of some corporation?
The lack of human compassion brutally apparent in Gosnell's accomplice/employees, I think, is a direct result of the sanctity of life being bred out of our culture in the last 40 years since murder of innocent babies was legalized. A culture can be accurately judged by how it treats its most vulnerable and innocent citizens. We have allowed the debasement of our culture to continue and flourish as the result of Leftist policy and ideology. The Kermit Gosnell clinic, and the horrific crimes which transpired there, and the total lack of outrage by the main stream, is illustrative of the soulless and compassion-less society that is created by strict adherence to Leftism.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Federal Education Equals Indoctrination
The problem with making an important part of people's lives like education a passenger on a government train with a final destination of federal control, is that authority is placed in the hands of fewer and fewer people. When this happens, there is necessarily an increased chance of corruption and a lower positive outcome for those having to avail themselves of those services. This is exactly the reason that the founders of this great nation created a federalist system which put the most power and authority in the hands of individuals, then local and state government. The least amount of control was given to the federal government.
What made education work so well in this country prior to the last 40 years, and the reason it doesn't work today, is that for most of this country's existence, education was a local issue and now it is a national one. Parents, local school officials and city school boards all worked together to inculcate in the children of their community the values and intellectual priorities that reflected that community. Since the 1970s, when education was essentially taken out of the hands of parents and local educators and placed under the control of national teachers' unions, the educational agenda was more about social engineering and less about a quality education that would produce decent contributing members of society. The new "common core" standards recently developed by the Obama administration and imposed on schools across the country, was in part, done so with the assistance of Bill Ayers. The unrepentant terrorist once bragged that he realized many years ago that the best way to take down the American system was by controlling what was taught in the schools.
I fail to understand how any intellectually honest and culturally aware person can make the case that today's education system is dedicated to expanding students' knowledge and their ability to think for themselves. Recent history is replete with evidence that the union-run education system is designed to indoctrinate children and young adults in the Leftist faith. I have heard horror stories of parents sending their children off to college, thinking they are spending gobs of their hard earned money for a quality education, only to have their children return after only one semester as Leftist radicals. The most infamous, of course, is a man named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks which killed over 3000 innocent Americans. His Kuwaiti parents said he was a moderate Muslim who was pro-American until he went to college. He returned from his first semester at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University hating America and fully immersed in the radical Islamist culture.
The anti-American indoctrination starts in grade school with the teaching of history that is deliberately inaccurate and is designed to show America as fundamentally racist, sexist, bigoted and as a country that has acquired its wealth by stealing it from poorer countries. The Leftist faith deliberately fails to inculcate in children and young adults the critical thinking skills to understand that poverty can never create wealth, so they believe the portrayal of their own country proffered by the high priests and priestesses of Leftism. Along with hatred for their own country, students are routinely exposed to anti-religious rhetoric, having God and virtue replaced by government and entitlement. Until control of educating our children is returned to its rightful place, in the hands of parents and local communities, our education system will continue to produce immorality and dependence, the only real goal of the Leftists who currently control it.
What made education work so well in this country prior to the last 40 years, and the reason it doesn't work today, is that for most of this country's existence, education was a local issue and now it is a national one. Parents, local school officials and city school boards all worked together to inculcate in the children of their community the values and intellectual priorities that reflected that community. Since the 1970s, when education was essentially taken out of the hands of parents and local educators and placed under the control of national teachers' unions, the educational agenda was more about social engineering and less about a quality education that would produce decent contributing members of society. The new "common core" standards recently developed by the Obama administration and imposed on schools across the country, was in part, done so with the assistance of Bill Ayers. The unrepentant terrorist once bragged that he realized many years ago that the best way to take down the American system was by controlling what was taught in the schools.
I fail to understand how any intellectually honest and culturally aware person can make the case that today's education system is dedicated to expanding students' knowledge and their ability to think for themselves. Recent history is replete with evidence that the union-run education system is designed to indoctrinate children and young adults in the Leftist faith. I have heard horror stories of parents sending their children off to college, thinking they are spending gobs of their hard earned money for a quality education, only to have their children return after only one semester as Leftist radicals. The most infamous, of course, is a man named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks which killed over 3000 innocent Americans. His Kuwaiti parents said he was a moderate Muslim who was pro-American until he went to college. He returned from his first semester at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University hating America and fully immersed in the radical Islamist culture.
The anti-American indoctrination starts in grade school with the teaching of history that is deliberately inaccurate and is designed to show America as fundamentally racist, sexist, bigoted and as a country that has acquired its wealth by stealing it from poorer countries. The Leftist faith deliberately fails to inculcate in children and young adults the critical thinking skills to understand that poverty can never create wealth, so they believe the portrayal of their own country proffered by the high priests and priestesses of Leftism. Along with hatred for their own country, students are routinely exposed to anti-religious rhetoric, having God and virtue replaced by government and entitlement. Until control of educating our children is returned to its rightful place, in the hands of parents and local communities, our education system will continue to produce immorality and dependence, the only real goal of the Leftists who currently control it.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
The President's Budget And The Immorality Of Leftism
Well the white smoke finally drifted out from the White House chimney, a sure sign that the President's long-awaited budget has been penned by the almighty Himself. Never mind that, by law, the President is suppose to present his budget by the first Monday in February each year, making Barack Obama's budget 65 days late. It is par for the course for a President that has no respect for law and who has been running the government budgetless for the last four years. Or maybe it is the lackadaisical manner in which he approaches every aspect of his job.
The President's budget is illustrative of the Lefts having blurred the line between government and the real economy. Mr. Obama, and the rest of his gang of think-alikes, actually are convinced that government is the economy. That is why President Obama thinks that by growing government he is growing the economy, because to his twisted way of thinking, they are one in the same. Just for the record, and with all due respect to our President's vast intellect, government is an economic negative. For each dollar that the federal government spends to ostensibly stimulate economic growth, it must first tax, borrow or print that dollar. Which means that dollar is taken out of the private economy before it is reintroduced, minus the cost of government which in some cases is more than the original dollar taken. This creates a scenario in which the private economy has to earn back the dollar that was taken, and in so doing it loses the opportunity to earn another dollar and to move the economy ahead by one dollar instead of just staying even.
Leftists like to say that the glut of government workers that have been hired under President Obama help grow the economy by buying goods and services. First of all, those people would have purchased just as many goods and services had they been employed with private sector jobs. Secondly, even if those federal workers paid all their salaries in tax, the taxpayers would still be on the hook for the cost of their benefits. So government workers, while necessary in limited numbers, are also an economic negative. Only in the Leftist world is it a good thing to have an ever increasing percentage of the population working for the government and sucking up wealth from the private sector.
The over-employment of government workers not only makes a claim on a larger chunk of private wealth, but destroys the incentive to create new wealth. Would-be entrepreneurs see no point in risking capital and sweat equity if a larger and larger chunk of what they earn is confiscated by government to pay salaries and benefits of an ever-increasing army of redundant government workers. Not to mention their hard earned dollars being squandered on a growing phalanx of people who choose to depend on government largess for their existence. This largess not only drains the created wealth of society, but prevents those who are on the public dole from contributing wealth through the use of their talents, abilities and hard work. And therein lies the immorality of Leftism, the confiscation of the very soul and essence of human endeavor and advancement.
The President's budget is illustrative of the Lefts having blurred the line between government and the real economy. Mr. Obama, and the rest of his gang of think-alikes, actually are convinced that government is the economy. That is why President Obama thinks that by growing government he is growing the economy, because to his twisted way of thinking, they are one in the same. Just for the record, and with all due respect to our President's vast intellect, government is an economic negative. For each dollar that the federal government spends to ostensibly stimulate economic growth, it must first tax, borrow or print that dollar. Which means that dollar is taken out of the private economy before it is reintroduced, minus the cost of government which in some cases is more than the original dollar taken. This creates a scenario in which the private economy has to earn back the dollar that was taken, and in so doing it loses the opportunity to earn another dollar and to move the economy ahead by one dollar instead of just staying even.
Leftists like to say that the glut of government workers that have been hired under President Obama help grow the economy by buying goods and services. First of all, those people would have purchased just as many goods and services had they been employed with private sector jobs. Secondly, even if those federal workers paid all their salaries in tax, the taxpayers would still be on the hook for the cost of their benefits. So government workers, while necessary in limited numbers, are also an economic negative. Only in the Leftist world is it a good thing to have an ever increasing percentage of the population working for the government and sucking up wealth from the private sector.
The over-employment of government workers not only makes a claim on a larger chunk of private wealth, but destroys the incentive to create new wealth. Would-be entrepreneurs see no point in risking capital and sweat equity if a larger and larger chunk of what they earn is confiscated by government to pay salaries and benefits of an ever-increasing army of redundant government workers. Not to mention their hard earned dollars being squandered on a growing phalanx of people who choose to depend on government largess for their existence. This largess not only drains the created wealth of society, but prevents those who are on the public dole from contributing wealth through the use of their talents, abilities and hard work. And therein lies the immorality of Leftism, the confiscation of the very soul and essence of human endeavor and advancement.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Brass-Knuckled Librarians-These Aint Your Grandma's Librarian
Why is it that while the relevance and importance of libraries in our culture has precipitously decreased in recent decades, the salary and benefits for librarians has had the opposite reaction. In my small town, for instance, the average librarian "earns" 45k a year. And that does not count the stocking full of benefits they receive. In fact, on average, a librarian in my town earns 7k a year more than the average police officer. With all due respect to librarians, I think I would rather spend my money on police protection than the keepers of videos, CDs and books.
Do not get me wrong, I am pro-library and pro-reading, but I am also a realist. And libraries in recent years have become depots for taxpayer funded free videos and music for those unwilling or unable to pay for these entertainment items themselves. I fail to understand the difference between a 50k a year librarian job and the $8/hour clerk at my local video store. Both check out videos and restock them when they are returned. Actually the clerk's job is harder because he has to sell popcorn, candy and soda.
The reason that these taxpayer funded video clerks who work in the library have such disproportional salaries and benefits is because of the librarian union, one of the most aggressive and thuggish of all the unions. This is no joke, the librarian union has grown into an organization that makes the Teamsters look like...well, librarians. Maybe Teamsters legend and mysteriously vanished president, Jimmy Hoffa, was actually done in by the librarians and his body hidden among the 15th century French poetry section. But I digress.
I never understood why librarians have to have masters degrees. I know a gentleman whose daughter is mentally challenged and restocks books at a local library. Now if she can do the job, why do we need to spend 50k a year plus benefits of taxpayer money to pay over-educated union members to do the same job. I understand the Dewey Decimal Classification can get quite complicated and may require higher education to understand and implement. My question is, "Why can videos and audio CDs at the library be organized alphabetically, but books need this complicated system which requires a master degree and salary and benefits approaching 100k a year?"
As valuable as libraries once were in our culture, they have become day cares and cyber cafes. People avail themselves of the Internet when they want information, they don't get in their car and drive to their local library. My local library always has small children running around screeching, or teenagers hanging out laughing and having a grand old time because there is no spindly, stern-looking woman in glasses with a tight bun on the back of her head shushing them. Now her I would have paid 50k a year.
Do not get me wrong, I am pro-library and pro-reading, but I am also a realist. And libraries in recent years have become depots for taxpayer funded free videos and music for those unwilling or unable to pay for these entertainment items themselves. I fail to understand the difference between a 50k a year librarian job and the $8/hour clerk at my local video store. Both check out videos and restock them when they are returned. Actually the clerk's job is harder because he has to sell popcorn, candy and soda.
The reason that these taxpayer funded video clerks who work in the library have such disproportional salaries and benefits is because of the librarian union, one of the most aggressive and thuggish of all the unions. This is no joke, the librarian union has grown into an organization that makes the Teamsters look like...well, librarians. Maybe Teamsters legend and mysteriously vanished president, Jimmy Hoffa, was actually done in by the librarians and his body hidden among the 15th century French poetry section. But I digress.
I never understood why librarians have to have masters degrees. I know a gentleman whose daughter is mentally challenged and restocks books at a local library. Now if she can do the job, why do we need to spend 50k a year plus benefits of taxpayer money to pay over-educated union members to do the same job. I understand the Dewey Decimal Classification can get quite complicated and may require higher education to understand and implement. My question is, "Why can videos and audio CDs at the library be organized alphabetically, but books need this complicated system which requires a master degree and salary and benefits approaching 100k a year?"
As valuable as libraries once were in our culture, they have become day cares and cyber cafes. People avail themselves of the Internet when they want information, they don't get in their car and drive to their local library. My local library always has small children running around screeching, or teenagers hanging out laughing and having a grand old time because there is no spindly, stern-looking woman in glasses with a tight bun on the back of her head shushing them. Now her I would have paid 50k a year.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
The Man Behind The Curtain
Earlier this week, President Obama gave an anti-gun speech in Newtown, Connecticut, the sight of the recent school massacre that resulted in the loss of over two dozen lives, mostly young children. Although the President used the parents of several of the dead children who were in attendance, the tragedy itself and the entire town of Newtown as political props to advance his anti-second amendment agenda, he said this issue was not about politics. The President seemed somewhat foolish, like the Great Wizard of Oz when the curtain is pulled back to reveal the pathetic little man behind the larger-than-life voice. But just like the Wizard, the President, in his realization of the obvious political theater he had created, told people not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, that what they were seeing (and hearing) was not what was actually taking place.
That same speech in which the President tried to sell the blatantly political as non-political, he also made one of the most ignorant statements ever uttered by a President of the United States of America. He said, "Let's make it just a little harder to gun down our children." So let me get this straight, President Obama and the rest of the Democrats (and even some moderate Republicants) want us to sellout our constitutional rights for the sake of making it "just a little harder to gun down our children?" This statement was not off the cuff, but in the President's prepared remarks. It still amazes me that I am amazed by the complete lack of rational thought flowing forth from this president and the seeming lack of desire of anyone, sans a few "extreme right-wingers", to point out the President's idiocy.
President Obama's grand plan for "making it just a little harder to gun down our children" involves limiting the firearms and ammunition choices of law abiding citizens. These are the very people who stand between the evil perpetrators of random and indiscriminate murder and their innocent victims. And while limiting ammunition magazine clips to ten rounds may make for political hay with Leftists who will not rest until the entire U.S. Constitution has been reduced to a pile of ashes, it is without a doubt the least effective solution to a problem ever. Criminals won't adhere to the ten round limit, and even if they did, it only requires seconds to change clips. So a madman with multiple clips that contain fewer rounds can do the same amount of damage as if he possessed one clip that holds the same number of rounds. Limiting ammunition only infringes on law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves, their families and their property, because obeying the law means they have fewer choices in keeping criminals at bay.
Mr. Obama's other "brilliant" ideas for "making it just a little harder to gun down our children" are to ban "assault-style" weapons and more stringent background checks. The former idea has never worked when it has been tried in the past, but failed policy ideas never stop Leftists from reintroducing them over and over again. The idea is logically flawed because it would have us believe that somehow hundred year old semi-automatic technology is more dangerous and likely to be used to commit nefarious acts when it is packaged in a body that looks menacing. As for background checks, I have news for the wizards of smart on the Left, CRIMINALS DO NOT SUBMIT TO BACKGROUND CHECKS! But then Leftists know this and the real goal of background checks is to register firearms that are in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
The real tragedy, besides the incineration of Constitutional rights, is that none of the new restrictions on those rights being proposed would have stopped the massacre at Newtown, or anywhere else for that matter. But we shouldn't acknowledge that fact. To do so would be to pull back the curtain of facade and see the tiny little man behind the curtain for what he really is.
That same speech in which the President tried to sell the blatantly political as non-political, he also made one of the most ignorant statements ever uttered by a President of the United States of America. He said, "Let's make it just a little harder to gun down our children." So let me get this straight, President Obama and the rest of the Democrats (and even some moderate Republicants) want us to sellout our constitutional rights for the sake of making it "just a little harder to gun down our children?" This statement was not off the cuff, but in the President's prepared remarks. It still amazes me that I am amazed by the complete lack of rational thought flowing forth from this president and the seeming lack of desire of anyone, sans a few "extreme right-wingers", to point out the President's idiocy.
President Obama's grand plan for "making it just a little harder to gun down our children" involves limiting the firearms and ammunition choices of law abiding citizens. These are the very people who stand between the evil perpetrators of random and indiscriminate murder and their innocent victims. And while limiting ammunition magazine clips to ten rounds may make for political hay with Leftists who will not rest until the entire U.S. Constitution has been reduced to a pile of ashes, it is without a doubt the least effective solution to a problem ever. Criminals won't adhere to the ten round limit, and even if they did, it only requires seconds to change clips. So a madman with multiple clips that contain fewer rounds can do the same amount of damage as if he possessed one clip that holds the same number of rounds. Limiting ammunition only infringes on law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves, their families and their property, because obeying the law means they have fewer choices in keeping criminals at bay.
Mr. Obama's other "brilliant" ideas for "making it just a little harder to gun down our children" are to ban "assault-style" weapons and more stringent background checks. The former idea has never worked when it has been tried in the past, but failed policy ideas never stop Leftists from reintroducing them over and over again. The idea is logically flawed because it would have us believe that somehow hundred year old semi-automatic technology is more dangerous and likely to be used to commit nefarious acts when it is packaged in a body that looks menacing. As for background checks, I have news for the wizards of smart on the Left, CRIMINALS DO NOT SUBMIT TO BACKGROUND CHECKS! But then Leftists know this and the real goal of background checks is to register firearms that are in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
The real tragedy, besides the incineration of Constitutional rights, is that none of the new restrictions on those rights being proposed would have stopped the massacre at Newtown, or anywhere else for that matter. But we shouldn't acknowledge that fact. To do so would be to pull back the curtain of facade and see the tiny little man behind the curtain for what he really is.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Lady Thatcher Articulates Leftism In One Statement
With the passing of Margaret Thatcher, the media has been replete with Lady Thatcher quotes. And while all have merit, it is her response to a Labor party member who accused her policies of widening the gap between the rich and poor, that is my favorite. In response to this typical Leftist charge that somehow wealth creates more poverty, Lady Thatcher said, "You are not concerned with the poor becoming poorer, as long as the rich become less rich."
This charge by Prime Minister Thatcher is illustrative of the core of Leftist thought. Statist policies are not designed to help their stated beneficiaries as much as they are to punish a manufactured "boogy man" that is held responsible by the statist for the ills suffered by the less prosperous. This "boogy man" is usually the wealthy or a business entity, but it can also be a shared value system that the Leftist does not agree with or that does not fit his agenda, like traditional marriage. On issue after issue, if you examine the Leftist position, you will find as the driving force for their animation that simple yet eloquent statement made by Margaret Thatcher. The Lefts entire ideology and political fortunes are based on convincing one class of citizen that their troubles are the result of another class of citizens and that they, the Leftist ruling class, are the only ones who can even the score using the power and authority of big government. But the score is never evened, and everyone is worse off except the ruling class.
The truth of Lady Thatcher's statement can be seen in the current debate over gun control in this country, even though it is not an issue specifically about rich and poor. At first glance, gun control may not seem to have anything to do with Margaret Thatcher's statement. But remember that the statement is a window into the Leftist soul which is driven by the desire to create a "boogy man" and then present big government as the only entity that can slay him. In the case of gun control, make no mistake, the boogy man is the second amendment specifically and the Constitution in general. And Leftists in the Democrat party do not care if their policies lead to people becoming less safe, as long as they also become less free and are more subject to an ever expanding central government that is under the control of Leftist ideology.
Lady Thatcher knew, as all who even glance at history know, that Leftist policies and ideology do not work, have never worked and will never work. That is if the aim is to achieve a society that is the most free, the most just and the most prosperous. Free market capitalism with limited government involvement works best for achieving these goals because it can create wealth. Government can only confiscate wealth and redistribute it, it has no ability to generate wealth by its existence. Prime Minister Thatcher also knew, as the late great Milton Friedman said, that the best remedy for poverty is wealth. A wealthy and prosperous society breeds less government dependence which is a major source of corruption in any culture. I have always failed to understand how Leftists think that it is better for a society to have fewer rich people, but then again, prosperity and the liberty which ensues from the existence of wealth, is not the goal of Leftist ideology. A truism that Lady Thatcher knew and articulated in one succinct statement.
This charge by Prime Minister Thatcher is illustrative of the core of Leftist thought. Statist policies are not designed to help their stated beneficiaries as much as they are to punish a manufactured "boogy man" that is held responsible by the statist for the ills suffered by the less prosperous. This "boogy man" is usually the wealthy or a business entity, but it can also be a shared value system that the Leftist does not agree with or that does not fit his agenda, like traditional marriage. On issue after issue, if you examine the Leftist position, you will find as the driving force for their animation that simple yet eloquent statement made by Margaret Thatcher. The Lefts entire ideology and political fortunes are based on convincing one class of citizen that their troubles are the result of another class of citizens and that they, the Leftist ruling class, are the only ones who can even the score using the power and authority of big government. But the score is never evened, and everyone is worse off except the ruling class.
The truth of Lady Thatcher's statement can be seen in the current debate over gun control in this country, even though it is not an issue specifically about rich and poor. At first glance, gun control may not seem to have anything to do with Margaret Thatcher's statement. But remember that the statement is a window into the Leftist soul which is driven by the desire to create a "boogy man" and then present big government as the only entity that can slay him. In the case of gun control, make no mistake, the boogy man is the second amendment specifically and the Constitution in general. And Leftists in the Democrat party do not care if their policies lead to people becoming less safe, as long as they also become less free and are more subject to an ever expanding central government that is under the control of Leftist ideology.
Lady Thatcher knew, as all who even glance at history know, that Leftist policies and ideology do not work, have never worked and will never work. That is if the aim is to achieve a society that is the most free, the most just and the most prosperous. Free market capitalism with limited government involvement works best for achieving these goals because it can create wealth. Government can only confiscate wealth and redistribute it, it has no ability to generate wealth by its existence. Prime Minister Thatcher also knew, as the late great Milton Friedman said, that the best remedy for poverty is wealth. A wealthy and prosperous society breeds less government dependence which is a major source of corruption in any culture. I have always failed to understand how Leftists think that it is better for a society to have fewer rich people, but then again, prosperity and the liberty which ensues from the existence of wealth, is not the goal of Leftist ideology. A truism that Lady Thatcher knew and articulated in one succinct statement.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
ObamaCare, A Boom For Democrat Voter Registration
It is a well known fact, or maybe it isn't by those who are politically and culturally unaware, that part of the welfare application process is voter registration. For years, welfare caseworkers have been acting as Democrat party voter registrars by helping recipients of taxpayer money register to vote, and in some cases, actually doing it for them. The caseworkers, as part of their mission to help the poverty-stricken and underprivileged (and to secure their own jobs), then tell welfare recipients to vote for people with a "D" after their name in order to keep the gravy train of taxpayer-subsidized benefits flowing.
The Obama administration has taken the model of Democrat voter registration in the welfare system, and amped it up for ObamaCare. Not only is voter registration part of the application to receive health care benefits through the state and federal health care exchanges under ObamaCare, but thousands of new federal workers have been hired and paid up to fifty dollars an hour with taxpayer money. Their job, to help people registering for ObamaCare, also register to vote for Democrats. This is one of the main differences between Democrats and Republicants, i.e., Republicants see issues as problems to be solved in the best interest of the country, and Democrats see every issue as an opportunity to increase their voter base.
If some guy with a blog like me can figure out the Democrat's real agenda, why can't Republicant politicians do the same. Republicant governors, like Ohio's own John Kasich, have fallen for the line that if they don't setup the ObamaCare state exchanges, they will miss out on getting back some of the state's money that has already been sent to Washington. A flaccid argument at best, because current federal spending is culled from money that hasn't been made yet by people who haven't been born yet. Therein lies the real immorality and incompassion of Barack Obama and the Democrat party. They consciously choose not only to condemn more people in the here and now to live in poverty, but also future generations.
Between welfare recipients, ObamaCare registrants and illegal aliens, all the Democrats have to do is change the law to allow felons to vote, and they will have created an army of dependents that will insure their electoral success in perpetuity. So in addition to astronomically higher health care insurance premiums, drastically reduced availability of health care, hundreds of new taxes, the loss of millions of jobs, the implementation of death panels, redistribution of wealth by federal authorities mandating that health insurers can't charge riskier seniors much higher premiums than younger persons and myriad of surprises yet to come, the Democrats have written into the law their ability to recruit voters at a time in people's lives when they are most vulnerable. With such obviously crass and despicable political tactics in use daily by Democrat politicians, one has to wonder how any freedom loving American can support this party.
The Obama administration has taken the model of Democrat voter registration in the welfare system, and amped it up for ObamaCare. Not only is voter registration part of the application to receive health care benefits through the state and federal health care exchanges under ObamaCare, but thousands of new federal workers have been hired and paid up to fifty dollars an hour with taxpayer money. Their job, to help people registering for ObamaCare, also register to vote for Democrats. This is one of the main differences between Democrats and Republicants, i.e., Republicants see issues as problems to be solved in the best interest of the country, and Democrats see every issue as an opportunity to increase their voter base.
If some guy with a blog like me can figure out the Democrat's real agenda, why can't Republicant politicians do the same. Republicant governors, like Ohio's own John Kasich, have fallen for the line that if they don't setup the ObamaCare state exchanges, they will miss out on getting back some of the state's money that has already been sent to Washington. A flaccid argument at best, because current federal spending is culled from money that hasn't been made yet by people who haven't been born yet. Therein lies the real immorality and incompassion of Barack Obama and the Democrat party. They consciously choose not only to condemn more people in the here and now to live in poverty, but also future generations.
Between welfare recipients, ObamaCare registrants and illegal aliens, all the Democrats have to do is change the law to allow felons to vote, and they will have created an army of dependents that will insure their electoral success in perpetuity. So in addition to astronomically higher health care insurance premiums, drastically reduced availability of health care, hundreds of new taxes, the loss of millions of jobs, the implementation of death panels, redistribution of wealth by federal authorities mandating that health insurers can't charge riskier seniors much higher premiums than younger persons and myriad of surprises yet to come, the Democrats have written into the law their ability to recruit voters at a time in people's lives when they are most vulnerable. With such obviously crass and despicable political tactics in use daily by Democrat politicians, one has to wonder how any freedom loving American can support this party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)