Childish leaders oppress the people: Let’s find some adults for leadership
One of the indicators of a childish mind is the defense of one’s self with claims of not being as bad as another person. You know how children- and child-minded adults- sometimes say things in their own defense such as, “Mommy, I’m not as bad as Billy or Obammy because I only told lies but they steal money,” rationalizing their own unacceptable behavior by pointing fingers at somebody else doing something bad or even worse.
Nazis, Charles Manson, the Devil, “Jim at the club,” “Jimmy at School,” “Elizabeth at work,” “Lizzie on the playground,” the French, and, depending on one’s political disposition, “the Democrats” or “the Republicans” are frequently pointed at as “worse than me” when the rationalization of bad behavior becomes the order of the moment. But discerning adults, primarily Moms and Dads, don’t accept that from children and discerning voters are sick of that sort of (lack of) reasoning from child-minded politicians and think tank luminaries.
If you and 300 million people were to form a new government and somebody anonymously submitted Paul Ryan’s budget proposal as a blueprint for forming or financing that new government would it be considered a blueprint for out-of-control big government or not? Winning an honest debate with American socialists is impossible because they will not debate honestly; they have co-opted our language so that even a “tax cut” is said to be spending. As evidence I offer Joe Biden telling a crying baby that she would have to pay for Republican tax cuts .
Shame on the socialists and shame on us for letting them destroy our language and our nation; spending needs to be paid for, tax cuts do not. Even big name putative Constitutionalist Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation seems to have had his thinking corrupted into child-mindedness by the socialists as evidenced by his love letter to Paul Ryan published at various news outlets which are not as discerning as Moms and Dads as he touts Ryan’s plan as wonderful though it is 90 percent of Obama’s. Like the Bible, the Constitution is not a living, breathing, evolving document and if we’ve accepted some of the socialist left’s premises as law due to previous courts’ bad precedent then we accept bad law and bad law is anathema to America because America is to be a nation of laws not men and certainly not men’s bad action (bad precedent).
The law is to be for the people and we should not ever accept the law being used against the people.
Many even unintentionally defend big government blithely claiming that the United States Constitution is not a suicide pact as they rationalize disregarding the rights of the people while claiming that the Constitution is getting in the way of government “accomplishing” some worthy task. They’re right, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, but neither is it toilet paper. We have our Constitution, imperfect as it is, imperfectly implemented in this imperfect world by imperfect men because they, unlike many today, were willing to die- even fight and kill- for their belief that the world needed a place to exercise the liberty created- and given to us- by a knowable God. So they signed a suicide pact called The Declaration of Independence, pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in defense of this right-wing idea of government by the people who would exercise rightful self-government if they would have liberty.
The despot King George then sent Redcoats to enforce his bad law. These soldiers of the king, in their own minds, were only innocently and righteously defending their surely morally superior and long-established super-power world empire from upstart, rebellious thugs, unlike the mercenary Hessians whom our founders also fought who were war profiteers, their motives, therefore, differing from the Redcoats. The Redcoats thought that they were righteously protecting and keeping faraway people safe from local thug, would-be totalitarians.
Feulner, like many others claiming to respect the Constitution, even touting an online class about the Constitution at the Heritage Foundation, would, through Ryan’s unConstitutional budget exercise, perpetuate the not so subtle unConstitutional abuse done to the American people by government which refuses to adhere to the rules which it should view the way a Christian should view the words of the Christ, Jesus.
How much should government spend and on what?
What control can government exercise over the people?
Can just government exercise control over those who do not consent?
Except for the last, these are questions to which, logically, there is no right answer, only opinion. Well there is logically no right answer without laying down the rules of government first and they have been laid down; they are contained in our, admittedly imperfect, Constitution which is mostly the codification of the Declaration of Independence which demands that an individual’s consent is required for the execution of just government.
Like Republicans- while exercising power as a majority in office, but not while campaigning- Feulner supports REALLY HUGE GOVERNMENT as he supports Ryan’s budget (which, not incidentally, was never submitted to President Bush). It’s useful to judge something by itself, not finding it good only because it is less bad than another thing, as do the child-minded.
The spending in Ryan’s continuation-of-big-government proposal, compared to other unConstitutional socialist plans, seems better only because it spends less. BUT viewed on it its own, compared ONLY to the Constitution, you find nearly all of the programs Ryan funds- which have existed for years- should not exist as they are not Constitutionally allowed; it continues to fund America’s destruction with family-destroying programs, paid for by taking, under threat of government force, from the productive and then giving to bureaucrats and other mostly able-bodied people who refuse to work.
Ryan’s budget being a bit less larcenous still doesn’t make it right. Quantitatively, forty-nine sharp sticks in the eye is better than fifty-one sharp sticks in the eye, but qualitatively they differ not a whit; they are both lots of sharp sticks in the eye. The Constitution does not allow government to put sharp sticks in our eyes and I no more would consent to Ryan’s unConstitutional big government than I would consent to Democrat unConstitutional big government because it is slightly less theft of the labor, the money and the liberty of my countrymen.
That is what the Marxist dialectic looks like and we remain loyal to the child-minded running our government at our peril.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”