Right News and Views

In my latest column I discuss the failures of this Congress and explain that, when modern Democrats and liberals fail in their goals, the rest of the country benefits. Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, Edwards… what have they done that has helped our country or made it more secure? Sure, Hillary voted for the war in Iraq but she regrets it. Indeed, she only “supported it” because she believed it to be smart politically at the time.

This is what Democrats call an accomplishment.

We really must stop these people from taking the White House and remove them from their current positions. A super majority of conservatives, true conservatives, in Congress could roll back the liberal nightmare that has been creeping over our country like a weed, choking out much of what is good about the US. Returning to basic values (like knowing what marriage is and is not, respecting others faiths instead of whining and calling in the the ACLU, and knowing that life begins at conception), lowering taxes (and putting the money into the hands of the people earned it - where it belongs), and keeping our nation strong (through military spending and getting rid of much of the rest of the fluff our government wasts our money on) we can put the US back on the straight and narrow.

Do you really want whiny liberals in the White House during wartime? Do you you really want a white flag flying over the Oval Office? Do you really want to send more of your money to Washington than you already do? If not, find the true conservative (and it looks like it is Fred) and vote for him.

In my latest column I explain why neither Hillary or Obama (nor any other Democrat) should be elected. The Republicans aren’t much better but it is either have a demon in the White House or the devil himself. Hillary is so obviously fake, Obama is inexperienced, and Edwards is revolting. And all of them are infected with the sickness of liberalism. But this particular piece highlights Obama and some of the comments he has made that prove he is unfit for public office. Not all Democrats used to be this way. Some were actually smart enough to work with Reagan, for example, but other than Joe Lieberman you don’t see much common sense from them these days.

“Stop daydreaming about our communist utopia, Hillary. I want it too but we can’t make it that obvious to the American people…”

Obama proves this with his ignorant faith in the tenants of liberalism and his naive belief that he can somehow change Washington. I want change in Washington, too- but I want change for the good, not towards communism and government control of everything in sight.

A good change would be the House, Senate, White House, and every court in the land held 100% by true conservatives. Ah, imagine- individual responsibility again! Imagine low taxes and the money being used wisely! Imagine an end to the murder of the unborn! Imagine common sense returning to government! But, sadly, as long as Democrats hold any power or exist in sufficient numbers to block such progress we’ll still have all the problems we have now.

With all that hot air coming out, Gore’s mouth produces more “global warming” than my car…

Here is a frightening thought- not only does the US government steal from your paychecks to fund misguided redistribution of wealth schemes but now the UN wants to get in on the scam.

According to the Senates committee on Environment and Public Works, a new, global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was proposed at a recent UN climate conference. And such a tax would hit the US hardest.

Fortunately, according to the piece, this loony idea “met strong opposition” from “a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth’s climate was “ultimately futile.””

Indeed it is. Unless you’re setting off multiple nukes there’s really not much, as the current factual evidence supports, that man can do one way or the other to the environment on a global scale. Further, note that the piece claims these are “prominent” international scientists and not environmental cultist like, say, Al Gore.

Of course, if you repeat something often enough some people are bound to believe it; a trick Gore no doubt picked up from his superior during his White House days

But I digress. The point here is that we have a fight on our hands with international nut jobs. The domestic variety aren’t helping matters, but what is unacceptable is even the possibility that some international gang of hoodlums be able to take money out of our pockets.

Any US official that supports this is either deeply misguided or an outright traitor. So, you can expect the usual suspects to be as enamored of this flakey ploy as they are of all their own schemes. Let’s just hope we get them out of the House and Senate and keep them out of the White House. Otherwise, our paychecks will be even less as FICA and Social Security taxes will be joined by the UNROW tax (UN Redistribution of Wealth). Or, as it and most of the other taxes we pay may more succulently be called: theft.

Nancy and Harry: The Distressed Duo. They can’t loose the war on Terror, they can’t push through wasteful spending programs, they can’t control or stop the President. Clearly, God still blesses America.

Every freedom-loving American can take heart in this piece from the Washington Post. Senate Republicans, it notes, are doing a good job holding the line in the war against liberalism. They have succeeded in preventing numerous liberal “ideas” from becoming law; saving many Americans from further government intrusion, theft of private resources, and further decay of moral values. Most importantly, their courage has given our troops all they need to succeed in the war on Terror: time. The Iraqis now have real chance at a stable government- something the Democrats worked hard to prevent. Even that dithering old man Murtha realizes this fact.

Though it is still a tragic reality; Democratic control of both houses of Congress has not been as disastrous as it could have been. Further, Bush continues to succeed on several fronts and keeps a chokehold on dangerous liberal ideas that, without his force of character, would damage the economy by raising taxes even higher than they are now.

Now, if we can only keep a liberal out of the White House and take back both Houses. If we can achieve this goal then we can get back on the road of actually moving forward and improving America rather than spending all our energy in keeping the liberals from dragging us backwards.

Sad, isn’t it, that we have to hope politicians in DC fail? But if the politician is modern liberal then for America to succeed the liberal has to fail.

Bloggers Note- I wrote this for Christmas 2006 and never used it. Enjoy!

In this Christmas season of peace and goodwill let us step back for a moment and good naturedly poke fun at both sides of the aisles. There’s a lot to make fun of, after all, and so we begin by skewering the Republicans with that classic Christmas song The Twelve Days of Christmas. All sing along:

On the 1st day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… A lame duck in the White House
On the 2nd day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… Too many scandals
On the 3rd day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… Three-Day work week pining
On the 4th day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… $Four(ty) million spent on lost House seats
On the 5th day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… Five golden opportunities (MISSED!)*
On the 6th day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… Six defeated Senators
On the 7th day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… Seven swine’s a-porking
On the 8th day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… Eight maid’s a-spending
On the 9th day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… 9,963 earmarks
On the 10th day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… Ten lords-a-squandering
On the 11th day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… Eleven pipers pontificating
On the 12th day of Christmas the Republicans gave to me… Twelve wasted years!
*Private Social Security accounts, border defense, immigration reform, reducing the size of government, and bigger, permanent tax cuts.

Of course, in the spirit of the season we’ve got to include the Democrats in the holiday cheer. Unfortunately, the Twelve Days of Christmas song just won’t work in their case because they didn’t give any gifts for Christmas (or “the holiday season” or whatever they would prefer to call it). Why no gifts, you ask? Well, it seems the animal rights activists obtained a court order forbidding the capture of the partridge, turtle doves, French hens, calling birds, geese, and swans. The environmentalists chained themselves to the pear tree and the five gold rings… well, there is no jewelry entitlement program (yet) so the congressman just pocked them. Don’t worry, though, you’re gold ring will be put to good use next year when it is used to fund another nearly empty superhighway in the backwoods of West Virginia. The maids were too busy a-milking the taxpayers, the ladies were (still!) dancing because of the 2006 election results (it’s been so long since they had cause to dance after all) and the lords were a-leaping for the same reason. The pipers were, of course, piping up with more negative comments about Bush and, finally, the drummers were out trying to drum up support for more Liberal programs.

On a serious note, and coming back down to earth from the unreality that lends the bit of truth to make the above moderately humorous, let us be thankful for what we have, share with those less fortunate, and pray for our servicemen and women who sacrifice time away from their family and friends to make the rest of our lives possible. Merry Christmas to all!

Get thee behind me?”

After reading this piece in Arkansas Democrat Gazette I think we’ve finally found the candidate America needs in the White House: Mike Huckabee. He has the only good point the Democrats have (their claim that they care about people) without their misguided and so-called ideas to best express that care.

For example, Huckabee said that it is the ungiving individuals who are responsible for higher taxes. “I’m often asked why taxes are so high and government is so big,” he said. “It’s because the faith we have in local churches has become so small. If we’d been doing what we should have — giving a dime from every dollar to help the widows, the orphans and the poor — we now wouldn’t be giving nearly 50 cents of every dollar to a government that’s doing … what we should have been doing all along.”

Huckabee understands that it is not government’s responsibility to take care of people’s personal lives. How refreshing. Even more refreshing is how forcefully he states it. Making no bones about government failure, he said that “government knows it does not have the answer, but it’s arrogant and acts as though it does.”

But he also understands that it takes brave Christians to stand up and proclaim the truth. As he concludes, “church does have the answer but will cowardly deny that it does and wonder when the world will be changed.”

The best portion of the piece follows, when Huckabee put his reasoning succinctly: “The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity. And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior.”

A man who boldly proclaims Christ is the answer and who truly believes it (as Huckabee seems to give every indication he does) is infinitely better than any other candidate - be they Republican or Democrat.

Oh, how I wish this image would come true.

Through many e-mails corresponding with various readers of In my Write Mind as well as this blog I have come to a realization; I am guilty of hypocrisy concerning my feelings and intentions towards Social Security as a retirement plan. Why? Because in the course of dialogues with dogged supporters of government enforced retirement planning I have often added comments, in addition to the facts I present against the system, to impress upon the reader just how emphatically I resent Social Security. These comments generally run along the lines that I intend to live as long as humanly possible to insure that I get back every cent with interest that was stolen from my paychecks. I have even quite seriously entertained the thought of setting up my will to include verbiage that I am kept alive as long as possible – even if I’m a vegetable – to insure I keep collecting my money.

But such sentiments, I now realize, are a betrayal of my own very deeply held beliefs. My logic, if such it could be called, was that I wanted to take back from the government all that it took from me. But this is a fallacy. Government does not have the money it ripped from my paychecks. I would simply thieve – through government redistribution- from young people to fund my living expenses in old age. So I would not get my money back nor would I take anything from government itself. Rather, I would merely accept the money of young mothers who may be having trouble making ends meet. Rather, I would merely accept the money of struggling families who don’t have quite enough to provide for their child or children the way they want to provide. Rather, I would merely accept the money of a young man who doesn’t know how he’ll make his next tuition payment.

I cannot in good conscience do that. What good Social Security does as a protection against disability is mitigated by how much harm it does as a retirement plan. And I simply refuse to be a part of it. In today’s world there is no excuse except blatant irresponsibility for failing to plan for your own golden years as even a modest amount set aside every week will lead to a secure, if not opulent, retirement. Of course, for those currently retired or about to retire, I would not dream of asking our nation to renege on its promises. But to my generation and those who will follow we must break the cycle.

And so, rather than apply for Social Security “benefits” when I retire, I will abstain. I will not be party to the plunder of the earnings of those younger than I. True, my own earnings will still remain subject to Social Security taxes. I do not wish to become Amish or Mennonite (two groups that our government does allow to opt out of Social Security- lucky them) and so I have no alternative but to pay for the retirement of others. But I will not subjugate future generations to the same concerning my retirement.

I therefore say again- I will not accept Social Security when I retire. True, I am but one person and will hardly have any impact whatsoever. But my conscience will be clean and, almost as importantly, I will presume to be an example and dare to ask if there is anyone else who will follow my standard? Will anyone stand against the looting of our youth or has individual accountability and personal responsibility vanished from the character of our country?

Socrates- using the Socratic Method against liberals and for innocents in Iraq.

Socrates is regarded as the father of political philosophy, contributing to the West the nebulous origins of the Scientific Method through his dialectic technique of seeking understanding. Better known as the Socratic Method – asking question after question to expose faulty logic - it can be frustrating in that it forces one to examine not only their beliefs but the very soundness of those beliefs. How would a war protestor fair against Socrates?

War Protester: War is evil and we must get our troops out of Iraq.

Socrates: Why is war evil?

War Protester: Because innocent people suffer and die.

Socrates: And why must we pull out of Iraq?

War Protester: So more of our soldiers won’t die because of George Bush’s mistake.

Socrates: Were people dying in Iraq before the war?

War Protester: Well, yes- Saddam was responsible for the deaths of at least half a million of his own people, and more if you count who died during his wars of aggression.

Socrates: Were those people not innocent?

War Protester: Sure, but it was none of our business to get involved.

Socrates: So, war is evil because innocent people suffer and die?

War Protester: Yes.

Socrates: And should mankind oppose evil?

Protestor: Of course!

Socrates: And so opposing evil would be akin to opposing the killing of innocent people?

War Protester: Obviously.

Socrates: If not by war, then what would you have tried to do to put an end Saddam’s killing of innocent people?

War Protester: Sanctions, maybe.

Socrates: Were sanctions ever tried?

War Protester: Uh, yeah they were.

Socrates: And did they put an end to the killing and the suffering?

War Protester: Well, no. They actually led to the starvation and anguish of a lot of Iraqi’s.

Socrates: And this suffering was in addition to the suffering inflicted by Saddam?

War Protestor: Yes.

Socrates: Since sanctions did not work, is there anything else that could have prevented Saddam from murdering innocent people?

War Protester: There had to be some way of doing this without putting our troops in harms way.

Socrates: And what way would that be?

War Protester: I do not know.

Socrates: Does anybody know?

War Protester: Congress, maybe.

Socrates: Did Congress vote to approve the war?

War Protestor: Well, yes- but some of them now claim they made a mistake.

Socrates: And have the offered another alternative to war?

War Protestor: No. And I just want them to bring our troops home.

Socrates: What would happen if the US withdrew its troops?

War Protestor: Iraq would likely descend into a bloody, violent civil war.

Socrates: Would this lead to more deaths and more suffering than is occurring now?

War Protestor: But our troops should be brought home!

Socrates: I ask again, would withdrawing US troops lead to more deaths and more suffering than is occurring now?

War Protestor: Yes, but our troops! They should not be there!

Socrates: So now you claim it is not good to oppose the killing of innocent people?

War Protestor: Yes- I mean no! I mean, not by war!

Socrates: How then would you oppose the killing of innocent people?

War Protestor: By opposing war.

Socrates: Did your opposition to war end Saddam’s mass murders or close his rape and torture rooms?

War Protestor: No, but I just can’t support war!

Socrates: Why?

War Protestor: Because war is wrong!

Socrates: If war is wrong because innocent people die then is doing nothing also wrong if, by your inaction, innocent people die?

War Protestor: I just have to oppose war!
Socrates: So, you oppose the only method that proved successful in ending the autocracies of Saddam?

War Protestor: I would not put it that way but yeah, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Socrates: But if in doing nothing people continue to suffer and die then is that not also a wrong?

War Protestor: (Becoming agitated)- I guess. I mean, whatever- war just isn’t the answer, man.

Socrates: How do you know war is not the answer since you have already claimed that you do not know what the answer is to ending the suffering and dying in Iraq?

War Protestor: Beginning to breathe heavily and speak angrily makes unintelligible sounds…

Ah, if it really were this simple to show liberals how ignorant they are.

Surefire way to peace. William T. Sherman understood.

“Fighting is not the answer” or “hitting someone will get you nowhere” are two refrains I often heard while growing up in school. After being so admonished the teacher (or principle if your crime were sufficiently grave), would hit the students rear end with a wooden stick and then send the chastised urchin back to class. Smarting in their seat, the student would then likely listen to a lecture centered on the terrible amount of casualties suffered at D-Day or how the bloodiest war in our nation’s history finally brought an end to slavery. Contradictory? You bet. But such contradictions are familiar to children who are often given an example they find just does not work in the real world.

Granted, we don’t want our children to turn to violence to resolve all of their problems. Nor do we want adults to ram their cars into another driver who just cut them off or our government to bomb Venezuela off the face of the earth because Hugo Chavez is an idiot. Regrettably, however, real world solutions sometime demand violent responses.

The school children that learn this, I imagine, grow up to be Conservatives. It does not mean they like violence- it does not mean they think it is the answer to every problem. It just means that they know that if they knock the bully down hard enough he won’t bother you again. The school children who do not learn this, I imagine, grow up to be Liberal. It does not mean they are stupid- it does not mean they are incapable of defending themselves. It just means that they hope that the bully will one day realize he’s a jerk and leave them alone. Everybody knows this student is in for a rough few years and a less pleasant educational experience than one might hope.

I recall specific instances in my youth where violence, or the threat of violence, ended my longsuffering tolerance of bullies. Indeed, a friendship even developed out of one such altercation. Most children, once they’ve had enough, stand up and defend themselves. Teacher involvement will not always, or even most times, solve the problem- students are young, not stupid. They know they can either intimidate their classmates into silence or use peer pressure to keep them down.

General William T. Sherman understood this. He once said that if he could make war so terrible that generations would pass before the defeated peoples would again make war to try and reach their goals.

Would that liberals understood this. But they don’t- that is why they are liberals.

Oh, look! Over there! Paychecks to tax! Wahoo!!!

In this piece I wanted to convey just how alien a liberal’s view of the world is compared to mine (that is to say, reality). Theft of one person’s resources is not right. It is not okay to say that, just because one person has two cars and one person has no car, you can take one from the guy with two and give to the guy with none.

Likewise, it is not okay to take money from one person’s bank account and put it into someone else’s 401K. Liberals don’t grasp this simple fact. They think that if government legislates it then it must be okay! Here is a one line answer to that: the government legislated the war in Iraq so why are liberals whining so much about putting and end to mass graves? Ah, but government intervention is okay only if it hurts your average American in favor of illegal aliens, people to lazy to work, or those too weak to take responsibility for their actions.

Hillary (I go into more detail here on here misguided outlook) is just like the rest of the Democrats, of course. It doesn’t matter which one gets elected as it will mean bad news for the country. They are all liberal which means they are all dangerous to moral values, our national security, and our paychecks. The hope to end the slaughter of the innocent unborn will be rolled back if they can appoint a liberal justice to the Supreme Court. Osama will rejoice at seeing a deadly enemy leave the White House to be replaced with someone who wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Taxes will skyrocket as one social program after another hurt working folks standard of living, delays their retirements, and generally rips them off.

So do your country a favor. Vote Republican. They are bad, too, of course, but nowhere near as nightmarish as a liberal running things.

Pelosi and Reid’s reaction to the good news coming out of Iraq.

There has been a lot of positive news coming out of Iraq- and hence the decline of the disgusting liberals “defeat at any price” mantra. You can’t blame them, of course- even they realize how foolish they already look without making it any worse on themselves. So they have mostly (and mercifully) shut their lie holes. The terrorists must be sad to see so little positive news from liberal American media outlets.

Ralph Peters sums up the Iraq progress perfectly in his piece Iraq: what went right. But what will the liberals do now that they can’t claim the effort was a failure? Ending the regime of Saddam surely cannot be claimed to be a mistake since it is headed towards clear success.

So liberals are floundering on an effort they put so much energy into- defeat for America. I hope this latest example of their lunacy will show Americans the truth about liberals and that leftist psychos will simply implode as a political force. I don’t know about you, but I take joy in the fact that they must contain in frustrated rage their inability to loose a war.

Because liberals don’t care, of course, about real results- they care about numbers and the effort itself. That’s why they can throw billions of other people’s dollars at unsuccessful social programs but cannot imagine putting their sissy rear ends in actual danger to help others. For all their talk of “make love, not war” and “war is not the answer” they forget what Peters so clearly understands: “peace can only be built over the corpses of evil men.” I cannot agree more.

But lacking true reason itself, the Left does not understand that monsters cannot be reasoned with and that we should just give up and maybe they will leave us alone (as I’ve pointed out before). Further, this is the group that supports the sending of millions of babies to their graves before they even leave the womb. How can they see that evil must be stopped when they traffic in so much wonton and vile depravation themselves?

Clearly, they cannot- and that is why they are wrong on Iraq.

The Democratic Parties take on any discussion concerning Social Security.

Clive Crook’s piece on reforming Social Security sounds reasonable in the same way you suspend disbelief during a sci-fi flick. To enjoy the film, you have to forgo asking all the really tough questions like, say, how does a laser fired at an enemy space ship make sound in airless space? Obviously, it doesn’t really make any sound. But to enjoy the fantasy you don’t ask that question. You just enjoy because it’s cool to hear it with John Williams music playing in the background.

Social Security works on the same principle. It sounds cool but it is not reality. Crook errs not in supporting reform of Social Security but in the programs existence itself. He notes:

“Private saving in the US is roughly zero. Given every incentive by a lunatic tax system, households have borrowed to the hilt and relied on house-price inflation to provide capital to support them in retirement. Those bets are going bad at the moment. Many Americans, especially the least well off, are going to be much more tightly squeezed after they retire than they expect. Social security gives them a base that should not be jeopardized – but for many of the not-rich, with few other resources to draw down, it is not enough. Politicians should be asking themselves how best to encourage more saving – and Democrats should co-opt “the ownership society” as a slogan of their own. So simple: just rebrand it “ownership for all”.”

Of course private savings in the US is roughly zero. People don’t think they have to worry about anything because big government will “save” them. But he got one other thing right as well- it is a bet that is going bad. But why suffer the consequences of your mistakes? And herein is the problem. It is not right, nor has it ever been right, to force one person or group to pay for another person or groups mistake. Yet that is the guiding principle of Social Security- the so-called “ownership for all.” So if you’re not prepared- for bad health or retirement – then others are forced to take care of you. This is sound in airless space.

Ownership for all is another word for communism- a form of government responsible for vastly worse standards of living for all concerned. It is as illogical a concept as punishment for all for the crimes of one or a few.

Just as we would not put Nancy Pelosi on trial for the war crimes committed by Hitler nor George Bush on trial for the murders committed by Jack the Ripper we should not punish the successful for the benefit of others. To do so is sound in airless space.

You do not fine the person going the speed limit and let the speeder off the hook. So why punish the worker and let the lazy off the hook? According to the “leaders” in the Democratic Party there is a simple answer to this and that answer is that most Americans are too ignorant to plan ahead for themselves. If true, it is time they learned their lesson- only then will they grow up out of the juvenile fantasy of a free lunch. It is the same kind of garbage Hillary is pushing.

But then Democrats don’t want any learning going on or they would be out of power.

Nancy reacts to news that some “poor” people are smart enough not to want her “help.” First she is shocked- then scared.

This piece by Michael Franc is just delicious. As the title suggests, the Democrats finally wake up to who they really represent. They, not Republicans, are the party of the rich. Ah, such irony for the pseudo-political thinkers who attack Republicans because they “don’t care about the little guy.”

Well, then why are so many little guys voting for Republicans? Maybe it’s because most of the little guys out there aren’t as stupid as the elite would like to think they are. Some are- which is how Democrats took over Congress in the last election. But most are not. I’m not, nor am I rich. Indeed, I earn a bit less than any of the median incomes noted in the piece and I certainly would never vote for Democrats.

My objection to Democrats is firmly grounded in moral reasons. I simply could not cast a ballot in favor of a party as morally repugnant as the one represented by a jack ass. But a close second reason is the fact that Republicans represent every clear-thinking American. They mostly want lower taxes for everybody. Do the rich benefit more from an across the board tax cut? Of course they do.

But imagine a family just getting by suddenly finding that their income increased by 10% thanks to a tax cut? That 10% could mean the difference between a happy retirement verses one merely existing on Social Security. Or, it could mean the difference in a better college for their now five year old son. A whole host of possibilities open up to people when they get to keep more of their incomes.

Here is the telling portion of the piece:

“Democratic politicians prosper in areas of concentrated wealth even in staunchly Republican states such as Georgia, Kansas and Utah. Liberal congressman John Lewis represents more than 27,500 high-income households in his Atlanta district. The trend achieves perfect symmetry in Iowa. There, the three wealthiest districts send Democrats to Washington; the two poorest are safe Republican seats.”

As I’ve noted before, it is lunacy to put Dems in power and I’m glad to see more people are realizing that fact. This must be scary to Democrats who drone on about income distribution, class warfare, and wealth disparities. Because if indeed the truth is ever realized by most Americans then Democrats will never be elected again.

And the world, or at least America, will be a much, much better place.

“Oh, oh, oh…look over there- it’s Karl Marx- I’ve simply got to go over there and shake that great mans hand!”

It comes as no surprise to me that Hillary Clinton wants to keep secrets. What is surprising is that so many people don’t already know what surely must be hidden in the documents held by the National Archives concerning her actions as First “Lady.”

As I’ve shown before, it is clear that she is a socialist for any who care to pay close attention. She has actually come out and said she would have to tax us more to insure fairness. She has actually come out and said she would like to “take those profits” and use them for social programs. And this one really lays it out: “Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” Put more succinctly, she said “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

What this would-be thief fails to grasp is that society is made up of individuals. Hurt individuals and you chip away at the very building blocks of society. The tax cuts helped ME and I’m certainly not “well off.” The tax cuts spurred the economy and helped a lot of people find jobs. And, despite the doom and gloom coming out of the ranks of Democrats, the tax cuts helped the economy; it is actually humming along nicely. Don’t believe me or your just too liberal to want to see the truth, then check this out.

When Hillary says “for America to get back on track” she forgets that the theoretical concept of a nation can neither be on or off a track. She is only talking about what she thinks is the track the nation should be on. But it is the people that are either on or off track, depending each on their individual wants and needs. And if she wants people to keep their lives on track then good for her. But it is not her job to see that they are on track. In America you’ve got freedom- and that freedom should include the freedom to fall flat on your face. In other words, it is all about individual accountability; not keeping a nation “on track.”

But for a socialist, the state is all that matters. How many more millions must die – how many more mass graves must be filled - before humanity finally puts the concepts of socialism and communism into their own graves?

John Edwards says that if he becomes president he will rip even more money out of our wallets. “To do this,” this piece in the Concord Monitor notes, “he’ll have to ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.”

Here’s a sacrifice you should be asking people to make- to get a job and keep it, to stop breeding unless you’re prepared to take care of your children, and to be prepared to suffer with the consequences of your mistakes and bad choices. But no, Edwards won’t do that- he’s only interested in stealing money out of the wallets of working people for some sort of liberal utopia fantasy (which is, in reality, a nightmare).

“Yes, sir- you better believe I’ll tax you, too. I’m going to tax everyone and everything in sight. Any other questions?”

Here he goes with his class warfare mantra. “It is central to what I want to do as president to do something about economic inequality. I do not believe it is okay for the United States of America to have 37 million people living in poverty. And I think we need, desperately need, a president who will say that to America and call on Americans to show their character.”

Call on us to show our character? By a socialistic government bent on redistribution of the fruits of one persons labor to another? Thievery is NOT a character trait. If he wants economic equality then he wants communism- pure and simple. There is no other way because some people are either smarter, better looking, or harder working than other people. And besides, I would rather be poor in America than rich in most other places on earth. But to Edwards it’s not about opportunity- it is about enforced “equality.”

Whatever. Edwards is a loon. Sorry, there is no other word for him. Oh, he’s slick- and smart enough to get wealthy as a lawyer. But to me character is working. Character is dealing with your own problems. Character is willingly helping others.

But character doesn’t have anything to do with putting up with government stealing from you.

“At every stop, Edwards said, he tells voters he’ll ask them to sacrifice.” Really? If he’s so interested in sacrificing then let him do it. And if he were only asking that would be okay. But he won’t ask if he becomes president. If Congress goes along with him he will FORCE Americans to sacrifice. Make no mistake- “asking” is a lie. He’ll hike taxes and there is nothing we could do about it.

Edwards is a liberal Democrat and so cannot, under any circumstances, be trusted with power. Indeed, I think he would be even worse than Hillary. And that, obviously, is unspeakably bad…B>