Star Light, Star Bright

I wish I may, I wish I might have the wish I wish tonight. The poor wish for material abundance. The government accommodates them by giving the poor the Lottery. Anything that raises revenue, by government standard, is good. Taking from those who have and giving it to those who don’t, redistribution of the wealth, by government standard, is good. Government is giving the American people their wish. It makes as much sense as playing Russian roulette. Intelligent people don’t do this. This is my point. Cluck, cluck! It’s the fox watching over the henhouse.

I keep asking myself, “why would intelligent people do this to themselves?” Redistribution of the wealth grows government, and personal power, in a nation of the people, for the people—of those who have less than other people, who make up the majority. It's hogwash, not the law. It is people who live by their emotions, not their common sense. It is absolutely childlike.

Why do some people have less than other people? Is it luck? I don’t think so. The personal power drive is natural for all sentient beings. It is natural for those with a grant of power to do what they can to gain more power. It is natural to take from those with resources, those with personal power, render them powerless, and by law give to have-nots? Doing what comes naturally is not what humans do. It is not natural law, the law of the jungle, that directs humans. America’s Constitution has a background of “higher law” meant for humans. Is it for the good of all to take from those who have and give to have-nots? I don’t think so. We are above lower life forms; we’re above behaviorist animals; that is, if we are mature adults.

Redistribution of the wealth, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, grows government. Failure of a big, powerful government to enforce the U. S. southern border doesn’t make sense unless you consider the source. Allowing poor Mexicans the opportunity to take advantage of the welfare state makes perfect sense. Obama and colleagues are engaged in a global movement to take from nations that have, the U. S. being one, and give to have-not nations. It’s an expansion of the idea of welcoming the poor of the world to America, giving the poor of the world a God-given opportunity to succeed. This the U. S. gives us is a manmade opportunity given by America’s political opportunists. It’s all about the powerful seeking to control the world (including the leaders of the most repressive nations on earth). Look out! It’s backroom wheeling and dealing, the individual’s God-given rights no different than an ant’s rights.

What makes those with a grant of power in the U. S. any different than other tyrants? It’s terrifying. It’s working. America is going bankrupt, morally, spiritually, fiscally. History’s record is enough to convince any thinking person that too much power in too few places is corrupting. America’s Founding Fathers were careful to create a government of divided powers, to avoid this we now have. Their Constitution has been replaced by New Deal law, Great Society programs, and now by “transformation,” the final solution: socialization of the law—the end result justifies the means: government oppression. It’s as old as the hills.

Common sense says we are born for justice, and right is not the mere arbitrary construction of opinion but an institution of nature. Cicero, the father of modern law. We are born for moral rightness, based on reason and logic, which is fundamental to the law. Government is rightly servant of the people, not our masters. The majority of the American people have voluntarily reduced themselves to child status, in need of government control.

The U. S. grew into a great nation long before the New Deal. The Great Depression and all that followed was planned by progressives. Their idea was to eat away at individual liberty, to place themselves in control of our lives by redistribution of the wealth. I’ve yet to hear even one politician, Republican or Democrat, speak the full truth.

Obama’s plan is to have accomplished his socialist goals by 2012. If the Tea Party is to accomplish its goal, it needs to concentrate on electing politicians who are committed to giving everyone equal opportunity: no less and no more. The Tea Party needs to admonish politicians to state specifically how they intend on accomplish balancing the budget, shrinking bureaucratic control, shrinking lobbying. Money goes where money flows. It is about giving us back our Constitution, letting all politicians know it means elimination of New Deal law, Great Society programs, and Obama’s transformation into a socialist state.

We’ve run out of time and remain whistling Dixie.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comments

  • I generally agree with your conclusions but disagree for their reasons.

    The issue of 'redistribution' is not a bad idea from its original ideals. For example, a poor state like Mississippi could not affort to build or maintain its interstate highway system the same way as Texas can. However, the interstate does pass through Mississippi and Louisiana to link them with Texas for public and commercial transportation. Therefore it is ncessary to have the poorer states to have subsidies higher than other states in the interest of all.

    However, I do not think this extends to local swimming pools, parks, or grants to facilitate local business development. Those cannot, nor should not, be on the same pork roast as education which is another issue affecting all Americans.

    While Obama is justly criticized for some of his approaches to building consensus with lawmakers, absolutely nothing he is proposing is that different than what the Republicans would prefer; the differences are basically down to who is awarded authorship.

    I have also heard the word 'socialism' being used to describe any federal intervention in our free market. This is absolute, misinformed nonsense. Pick any definition - past or present - of socialism and it simply does not describe anything being presented by the president, the congress, or any other government entity. It is just not true.

    Government intervention in our free market has historically always been as an advocate for the consumers (first) and to maintain corporate competition (second). If we did not have provisions for anti-trust protections, then we'd only have one brand of automobile in this country, one airline, one internet browser, and so forth.

    President Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers in the interest of the public's ability to travel AND the airline industry. In essence, he drew the line where a union cannot disrupt the commerce of an entire nation. That wasn't socialism either but a pragmatic decision to preserve a free market.

    With the General Motors bailout (Chrysler is somewhat different) I agree a bankruptcy procedure may have been enough. However, I do see the point of view of the effects further layoff's would have on the overall economy, not just one local situation. This also is not socialism when the intent is to enable GM to get back on its feet then get the government's money back. There is precedence for this, going back to Reagan, when the government loaned Chysler a huge amount of money which, under Lee Ioccoca, paid back years before promised. Again, that was not socialism either.

    The universal healthcare issue is another thing being called 'socialist' which, again, is nonsense. Both Republicans and Democrats agree in principle on the need for universal healthcare with some government presence in assuring all Americans have healthcare. This is not socialism in concept or means when thinking people understand that Bird Flu or H1N1 has no respect for economic status but does respond to vaccines and treatment IF people have access to healthcare. That is not socialism, it's just plain common sense where everyone, including HMO's and pharmaceuticals, wins.

    It is an extreme stretch to cite Marcus Cicero who lived in Rome during the First Century B.C. as 'the father of modern law.' That law is, yes, to a limited degree premised on aspects of common morality. However, like morality, laws change through reason and logic. The 19th Amendment asserted women's right to vote; IN 1920! That's around 150 years AFTER our Constitution was written.

    To view the law and Constitution as some megolithic entity not subject to change or interpreation through the courts is being anachronistic in the very least and blind to the processes' beauty at the most.

    As an Independent - a member of the largest voting block today - I would be willing to be a Tea Party member IF, and only IF, there was some kind of self-policing mechanism in place to curb the irrational rhetoric being reported in the press and on this web site.

    I firmly believe the formation of a party or coalition comes with responsibility of not becoming what is being objected to; factual dishonesty by the two ruling parties.

    I suggest a working understanding of what 'socialism' is, rather than using it as a generic descriptor of what is disagreeable, is a good first step. Once that is resolved, let's get down to the meat of the real issues.

    Locus
This reply was deleted.