We have the most conservative Supreme Court we have had in decades. The nation is more against abortion that it has been since Roe vs. Wade. And all the decisions made by the Obama administration and the Congress these last two years have been less socialist than any of the administrations--Republican or Democrat--in the 60s and 70s. It's economic policies are hardly any more "socialist" than the Reagan administration. Nobody even seems to know what the word means!
Good grief! No one remembers anything before 9-11. And everyone thinks the economic situation before the recent recession was healthy and normal--whether you're a greedy capitalist or a free credit socialist. They worked hand in hand you know. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac handed out the loans to the free credit socialists and then the greedy capitalists truly caused a world economic crisis by bundling them up and playing volleyball with them.
I would normally vote for Mike Pence but his "waves of grain" commercial really ticks me off. The whole game the Republicans are playing ticks me off (I realize that they all play games, and Elsworth isn't even competent enough to have any commercials going at all). No information of any kind in Pence's commercial. As it hypnotizes you with waving wheat and soft "American" tones it says, "Just vote for me and everything will be right as rain again." It makes me feel like I'm being drugged.
Let me build a bridge to the past for you. Vote for me and I'll take us back to an agrarian economy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I haven't formed in my mind all the differences between today's march on Washington by "One Nation" ideologues, and the "Restoring Honor" march by the "Tea Party".
One voices concern for the minorities and their rights to equal pay, while the other voices their concern over the social sins that perplex our nation and their commitment to the "free market" and individual responsibility.
Both are trying to restore "sanity". One restores sanity by appealing to government, Union Bosses, and other organization apart from oneself to "take care" of what concerns them.
The other shouts that the government shouldn't patronize them by stepping on their rights to individual choice and liberty of conscience.
I do believe that our Founders would have voted with the "Tea Party", rather than expand government's control over the lives of the nation. Their vision was one of self-governance, responsible citizenship, liberty of conscience concerning religious convictions, and accountability through ordered liberty.
Equality is important to the disenfranchised. Therefore, the disenfranchised are the ones that are appealing to government to "rectify injustice" through government programs and priviledging minority groups.
These groups made up the "One Nation" assembly yesterday. These were those who appealed to a "collective identity". And these are those who are seeking "civil rights", as protected by our Constitution.
The "Tea Party" are those who are tired of those that do not protect the right of the individual from abuse of power. And abusing power is what those in power have come to represent, instead of representation of "the people". What the "Tea Party' wants is for government to not intrude and enforce standards that are not productive to individual choice and value, as this is how the "free market" and a "free society" has come to understand itself.
While the collective identities of social/political groups represent the concerns of the "One Nation", the individual identities of American citizens are representative of the "Tea Party".
One believes in human rights of a globalized world, while the other believes in individual rights as granted by our Constitutional government.
One is a "universalized ideal" based on equality, while the other is a "practical social" solution to government based on liberty under law.
I wouldn't say nothing is wrong with the constitution. It's a man made document, what do you expect? However, the constitution is what we have, which is why, if one values rule of law, and one should, one should care more than most Americans do when government is conducted without reference to the constitution.
I would make the above point to tough-on-crime conservatives with no patience for the rights of criminial suspects and the non-conformist. I would make the point more emphatically to progressives who disdain the actual meaning of what the constitution says as an outdated impediment to their agenda.
I would add, all in all the constitution was a pretty good idea in the first place. Not sacred in and of itself, but about as good as anyone has done.
The federal gov't is clearly overstepping it's bounds. Where in the constitution does is say they can have an e-mail address, paid for with my tax dollars? We'd be better off living in the 18th c.
Post a Comment