Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Taking a Page From Michele Obama's Book

Today, I am not proud to be an American.

Why? Because today we (the collective American people) have shown to the World that the Presidency of the United States may be purchased by the highest bidder. And for us, the highest bidder is someone that we do not even know. He cannot be questioned, his past associations cannot be discussed, and his citizenship cannot be proven with a valid birth certificate. But none of this matters because he is beyond question - thanks largely to the liberal media.

I'm sorry George, I'm sorry John, I'm sorry Thomas, and Benjamin, and Alexander. I apologize to all of the founders that we were not able remain true the their intent and to the Constitution that has served us so well. We have now elected a man President that believes the Supreme Court should make decisions based upon emotion rather than reason and that punishing accomplishment through taxation will somehow make the economy stronger. Taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" will only limit additional investment by the rich and encourage the poor to continue their current path.

I hope that the America that I do love is strong enough to survive the "tests" that have been promised by the now Vice President elect.

God be with us all.

##That's my opinion##


Anonymous said...

More completely unsubstantiated claims, with no foundation.

What is shameful to our democracy, and the reason our Founding Fathers are turning in their grave, is the kind of political bigotry and nonsense professed by the author of this "blog".

1) The President was elected because he received more votes -- that is a fact. Correlation is not causation: the fact that he had more money does not explain why he had more votes. Your statement is a fallacy.
2) Barack Obama is known -- he is 47 years old and has been involved in politics all his life. That is a fact. The statement that he is "unknown" is a fallacy -- you simply need to do more research.
3) Obama's past associations can be discussed. This is a free country and they have been discussed (in particularly disgraceful and dishonorable ways by your candidate) at length. Obviously, Americans are smart and they are not swayed by drivel. You are making a baseless claim.
4) Obama is a United States citizen by birth. Eternal shame on you for questioning that. The United States bestows citizenship on individuals -- it is the United States' prerogative to do so. The United States does not have to prove to its citizens that its own documents are true. Are you going to question the true nature of Federal Reserve notes against the opinion of the Federal Reserve? I repeat: this is not only a stupid comment, it is *shameful*. Shame on you.
5) The media is not liberal. I watched FOX news yesterday and only a trisomic alpaca would call it liberal. I listened to AM talk radio yesterday and only a comatose diplodocus would call it liberal. Where on earth do you come up with the notion that FOX and AM talk radio is liberal? Are you trying to find excuses for why intelligent, rational, human beings disagree with you? Here's the scoop: they disagree with you because they disagree. Get over it. The media has got *nothing* to do with it.
6) The President-elect does not believe that the "Supreme Court should make decisions based upon emotion". You just made that up. You have no fact, no text, no snippet, no history, no record to support this lame, baseless claim. Is that what you think Democracy is about? Making up complete nonsense to discredit candidates? Is that what you think the founding fathers believed in? Fabricating stories to pick new presidents? You should study your history a bit more.
7) The President-elect does not believe in "punishing accomplishment through taxation". You just made that up. Need I go on? You are making stuff up as you go. What next? He is a child molestor, a dinosaur, an alien, the Antichrist, a machine, a circus acrobat?
8) "Taking money from the "rich" and giving it to the "poor" will only limit additional investment by the rich and encourage the poor to continue their current path": well that's just an opinion, and you are entitled to an opinion. I'm not going to complain about that. This is a perfectly legitimate sentence. Too bad the rest of the blog is so different.
9) "God be with us all": well, thanks. We're going to need all the help we can muster to get us out of this ideologically-dubious-laissez-faire-pseudo-capitalist mess.

And today, *I* am proud. America made a choice based on facts, not fiction, based on ideas, not ideology, based on hope, not fears. Thank you America. I'm not sure it's going to work out but at least we gave it our best shot.

Lucid Guy said...

Anonymous, you are obviously passionate about your position, though sorely misguided. And every one of my claims is substantiated, you just don't want to hear them, and that's fine. You are welcome to your opinion no matter how incorrect your position.
1) Barack is the President elect because he will receive (not yet) more electorial college votes. Popular vote has nothing to do with it. My point was that most Americans are not politically informed and vote based upon what they hear and see. Since Barack had much more money (not just a little) he was able to saturate the TV, radio, and print to reach many more uninformed voters.
2)Your statement about Barack being known is either funny or naiveté, as the Los Angles Times reporter assigned to Barack for 24 months recently admitted that he couldn't get close enough in two years to understand who he was or what he stood for - so you're wrong.
3)The facts about Barack's associations are that he names as some of his friends an American terrorist, an American hating racist preacher, a racist priest, and Louis Farrakhan. Please try to defend those - it will be entertaining to the rest of my readers.
4) Shame on me for bringing up the citizenship requirement to be President? If Barack is an American citizen, then how in 1981did he travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport? The US does not allow citizens to obtain passports from foreign nations.
5)Your right about Fox News and Talk Radio - thank God for them. I was talking about ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and almost every major newspaper in the country. They were all in the tank for Obama. If you think the media did not play a role in this election, you are living on a different planet.
6)Your too easy. Google this, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart". Obama made that statement when explaining why he voted against John Roberts. Judges work from the rule of law, not feeling.
7) Does Barack not support taxing the highest wage earners at a higher rate? Would you not agree that these people, who already pay 90% of all taxes, are accomplished? Then he is punishing accomplishment. Big government draws power from a dependent citizenry and Barack is going to ensure that as many people as possible are dependent on the government. You are truly uninformed and naive.
9)And for the kicker, "...America made a choice based on facts...", not hardly. Barack is the President elect because he is black. A white man with Barack's exact, let me say that again, with Barack's exact resume and experience would not have been the nominee much less elected President. Call me any name you want, it's the truth and all of America knows it.

Anonymous, go sell crazy somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

Hey thanks for the answer!

1) I know what you were trying to say. But I'll stick to my story "correlation is not causation". It's the scientific thing to do. I stand corrected on the vote thing, you are right, it's not the number of votes that counts. As to "uninformed", I've wanted to barf every time I heard somebody vote for McCain because he wore a lapel pin and his opponent is a Muslim... I think the hysteria works both ways!
2) Oh, I'm "wrong". You, on the other hand, seems to be incredibly well informed! How do you manage to be well informed about somebody we (collectively) know little about?
3) yes your million readers will be entertained. Wait a minute, I'm your only reader!
4) you are mistaken, my friend. The US tolerates other citizenships. The oath of allegiance only requires that you renounce your allegiance to any foreign "prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty" (oath that is BTW not required for natural born citizens!). You are not required to relinquish a passport, nor are you prevented from acquiring another one! Your proof is not sufficient (as opposed to a Birth Certificate, which is).
5) oh goodness gracious. The media serves you well, doesn't it. I was able to research all these baseless claims in a matter of minutes. Only to find out that they were, well, baseless. The only problem I see with the media is that there is an outlet, out there, that will agree with any nonsensical stuff that anybody will come up with. The citizenship issue is a case in point.
6) I did what you said, went to "" and the word emotion is not mentioned. There is "That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." That hardly qualifies as "emotion". Are you stretching the peanut butter on the sandwich?
7) I don't know about "uninformed". "Naive" is merely a judgment call. But hear me out: Paying taxes is not necessarily a "punishment", nor making money necessarily an "accomplishment". Paying taxes can (and should) have direct benefits, and making money should be (but is not always) correlated with accomplishment. You are improperly generalizing the common view of current economists -- though you are not fundamentally incorrect. Taxation often benefits more than it costs, although it may seem "unjust" to the one paying them. The complaints have been going on for thousands of years. Obama is only tweaking a knob that has served America *very well* over the last century. Bush pushed the knob too far to the left, Obama will push it back to where it was (as voters, you and I, agreed to).
8) A white guy would have won more Republican votes, because Republicans have lost faith in their own party. But that's speculation on my side (as it is on yours). I forcefully disagree with your claim that a white Obama would not have been elected. Neither you nor I can prove our point here.

Anonymous that goes by the name "Lucid", I'm not selling anything to anybody! My candidate won already!

Ordinary Guy said...


(can I call you Anon?)

First let me say that at least the Democrats did not get a super majority in the Senate... But Nancy Pilosi and Harry Reid are jumping for joy at their 'progressive' or 'liberal' policies.

What has been gained by the election yesterday?

-- Will the race issue in this country finally be put to bed or inflamed more?

-- What does 'single payer health care' mean to you?

-- Is giving a tax rebate to people who don't pay taxes welfare?

If you had been one of the 40+ daily visitors we have to this blog you would have seen that McCain was again a lesser of two evils. Both the authors of this blog (and BTW... I am hoping to bring an Obama supporter as an author on soon) supported Romney.

I too am appalled at the stupidity of voters on both sides. One who claims that Obama will pay their mortgage and another who is voting for Obama just because he is black. McCain supporters calling Obama supporters 'baby killers' and 'communists'. This election was the most vile, useless, stressful, idiotic waste of time.

America Voted. They have chosen Obama. He will be our 44th President. Time will see how he does and we must support him as the people have chosen.

I awoke this morning to find a McCain / Palin sign on my front yard with a hand written note that said "No I guess you can't" on it. I never did anything to deface an Obama sign. I worked hard to help Obama supporters understand the danger of some of his policy proposals. The danger of having a single party have 2 branches of government (look at how bad it was when the Republicans were in control!)

If this is the way that those who 'won' are going to behave then I am really, really frightened. Not for what Obama will do... Or Pilosi / Reid... But for the savage stupidity of the American people.

I have always encouraged healthy, respectful discourse on this blog and this comment stream is starting to push the limits.

Please keep it above board and avoid name calling.

-End of Ramble.
(Conservative, in Exile)

Pragmatic said...

Authors: this is what you have written on your "healthy, respectful" blog. (all from “Lucid”, my dear “Ordinary”)

"Stop being politically correct and polite to someone who is lying to the American people"

"Fight for our right not to have an inexperienced socialist as our President."

"Senator Obama, you are an elitist and and show contempt for anyone who does not share your shallow and dangerous point of view."

(and that’s a 30-second search)

There is something deeply infuriating about these comments -- no matter how much you think they are grounded in facts and ideology. So please accept my apologies for my "bigot" name-calling / two wrongs don't make a right. My point is not to encourage name-calling -- notice that my "reply" did not contain a single name in it. That was an expression of my gratitude for "Lucid" not calling me names (except "naive", but that's easily forgivable) in response to my pretty-infuriating comments. There will be no more of it.

You have three questions.

1) No the race issue will not be over. Both McCain and Obama said as much.
2) It means that an entity (public or private) regulates the cost of healthcare provided under the guidelines of a government branch. Beyond that, I don’t know.
3) Yes. It's a really dumb idea if you ask me. I think sending tax rebates when we are running record deficits is... I can't find a word that won't be construed as name-calling.

These are very good questions that undermine the Democratic candidate's platform -- but the Lesser of Two Evils Award still goes to Obama IMO.

I am sorry about your yard sign event. It is truly appalling -- I don't know if it will make you feel better but all the Obama signs in my neighborhood were stolen one sunny Sunday morning. You'll be glad to know that there was no backlash from Obama supporters and all McCain signs remained standing all the way through the election. As an Obama voter, I am revolted by what was done to you -- it's an affront to democracy and freedom of expression. While it is indeed name-calling, I think we can all agree to call the people who did that "savagely stupid".

I’ve disabled Javascript and can now sign “Pragmatic” (please, no malware!).

Beth said...

Ordinary Guy, do not go into exile, this is the time to make sure the people in Washington know without a doubt our point of view because we don't have enough represntatives there to do it for us.

And Pragmatic, give me a break, saying race issue isn't over. Black people can never say they don't get a fair shake in this country, look at Oprah, look at Bill Cosby, look at Clarence Thomas, look at Colin Powell, and now our president-elect is black. These black men and women have made it on their own into positions of power, wealth and influence. No more excuses that race is an issue, no more! This is the last straw! Glass ceiling officially broken!

Christopher Hamilton said...

Great post and I agree with you on this.

I'm looking forward to reading more. If you are willing to add me to your blog roll I will be willing to add you. Let me know.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

To be fair OG, the Republicans were pretty good at the practice of wealth redistribution as well. Only, whereas the Democrats employ a strategy of taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor", the Republicans were taking from the middle class and rich to give to other rich folks. They did this with renewable/alternative energy producers, mass transit, education, professional sports team stadiums, etc.

I concur with Beth. I've not been around much since June as I had been working on the campaign of a local candidate running for the state house as well as forging ahead with much work with the MN Sons of Liberty PAC.

And, while I'm enjoying a short break from it all, our time is NOW. It is at this very moment that we should be working our asses off. One,in an effort to assert our influence within the party and Two in such a fashion that it is not a watered down version of Democratic policies as has been. But, instead it will become a movement and cause which is the complete and total polar opposite of their party so that when their policies of collectivism fail (and they always do for the reasons you mentioned herein) we will have something different to offer them.

Beth said...

Oh good Lord though Soapie we've got our work cut out for us, look at the usual suspects at Daniel's blog who are blaming the GOP's loss on conservatives who wouldn't vote for McCain, instead of blaming the GOP itself!

Name: Soapboxgod said...

I'm not worried. Those idiots don't get actively involved. There level of political involvement begins and ends with putting a bumper sticker on their car.

What the hell are they gonna do when folks like you and I infiltrate the party structure? They'll do the same thing they always do. They'll get in line like they always have, we'll lead them down a course of Freedom, Liberty, and Individualism and we'll go no thanks for it.

Ah well.... I'm not doing it for them anyway.

Ordinary Guy said...


So good to hear from you again. I agree about a revolution from within. I applaud the work you are doing and struggle to try to find the time and capability to do similar things here.


I believe that the socialist tendencies of the current Democratic party will become evident in the near future. I also believe that sometimes strong language is needed to try to shock people into awareness. It did not work and we will see what occurs in the next 2 - 4 years. I do not disagree, and have been critical of the Republicans for failing in fiscal responsibility among other things. Finally let me say that the reason we are in such 'dire' straights in this country economically is BECAUSE the Government has been involved. Capitalism is not designed to be manipulated by an external large entity. I DO believe the Government has a place and part in regulation around the Environment and should have a leadership role, but not a direct manipulative role. It is obvious that all the 'smart' people who have tried to manipulate the system have been outsmarted by those who were looking for their own individual gain... which is the impetus behind Capitalism.

-End of Ramble

Pragmatic guy said...

I am somewhat amused by the use of the periphrasis "Socialist tendencies of the current Democratic party". I assume that you are saying this, as if I should understand "the tendencies of the current Democratic party which will result in the destruction of our society by limiting entrepreneurship, encouraging laziness, promulgating dependency on government handouts and choking the business class that creates wealth and jobs".

Unfortunately, when I read "socialist", I understand "the ability of a society to implement political and economic programs that cause entrepreneurs to thrive, that promotes self-reliance and encourages the business class to invest in new paradigms and technologies". You see, "socialist" only means "promoting social causes", just as "capitalist" only means "using capital to stimulate business". In their strict sense, capitalism and socialism are the two forces that, on the one hand, promote competition, and on the other, promote harmony, both of which are required to create a society that is pleasant to live in.

As to the use of strong language, I believe only poised, rational discourse can convince people who are sitting on the fence that they should go one way or the other. The "denunciation" tactics create excitement amongst the "base", but I don't think they "shock people into awareness". In my case, the infuriating language reinforced my opinion that conservatism in 2008 is self-righteously shooting itself in the foot.

Capitalism that is not manipulated by an external entity (I don't know what you mean by "large") reaches a point of equilibrium that is virtual anarchy -- monopolies, concentration of power. In other words: aristocracy, monarchy, oligarchy. The government's role goes way beyond the environment, and includes higher education, infrastructure, labor exploitation, research, antitrust, legislation, the judiciary, law enforcement... and all those things that the Socialists of the 19th century have fought for and won. While I can see why the Socialists of today may be vilified for a variety of reasons (such as creating a dependency on welfare and sustaining a culture of “entitlement”), I don't think we can make a blanket statement and affirm that Socialism is bad, when we all owe so much to its ideals.

I am surprised that you make the statement that "all the 'smart' people who have tried to manipulate the system have been outsmarted by those who were looking for their own individual gain" after our capitalist-in-chief (Alan Greenspan) acknowledged that He (Himself) had made a mistake by thinking that banks (long thought to behave like individuals) would act according to their own benefit. With that said, I would agree with the majority of Republicans that "individual gain" is a wonderful driver of innovation and wealth, but I'll add that socialist programs, such as the GI bill, space exploration and food stamps have benefited all of us, even though we weren't direct recipients of the funds. We have benefited indirectly so many times around that it is difficult to realize how pervasive beneficial government intervention (or "manipulation", if you prefer) is. I think we all tend to look at the negative (welfare checks, failing schools) much more than the positive (innovation, research, consumer protection). Simple human nature.

Beth said...

Socialism is not consistent with the ideals of freedoms, because whenever the government takes over a segment of our economy or intervenes in any way, our freedoms are compromised.

Why do you think our nation has become a superpower in its relatively short history? Why is it that many other countries seem to be turning to more conservative leadership lately? Why are our poorest cities run by Democratic leaders?

And please me how food stamps benefit me!

Pragmatic guy said...

Dear beth,

"Whenever the government [...] intervenes in any way, our freedoms are compromised"? Well, please call your local police station and ask them to not intervene when a murderer comes into your house. Pinkerton will come to your help (for a fee). Please call your local fire station and ask them to not intervene when your house burns. Your private fire insurance will show up momentarily. Please call your local public defender and ask them not to intervene when you are unjustly sent to prison. Your $500-an-hour attorney will be pleased to help. And don't claim workman's compensation, Social Security, don't get a tax break on your energy-efficient house/car. Somewhere, somehow, the free market should do something to insure workers, provide retirement benefits and promote new technologies. Except that it doesn't.

I mean, do I *really* need to go on? The governement was set up to... wait a minute... no... it can't be... yes? ... The government was set up to protect your freedom. That is the purpose of the government!

So please, no more "governement takes my freedom away". The government, and only the government, will ever protect your freedom. Citibank, General Motors, Wal*Mart, Microsoft and Delta Airlines don't give a rodent's arse about our freedom. If they could squeeze more money out of your pocket they would -- if that means less freedom for you it wouldn't make an iota of difference. On the other hand, there are thousands of local and federal government agencies exclusively dedicated to making sure your rights are represented and catered for. The only thing that saddens me is how ungrateful everybody is. It's unpatriotic to question the presence of soldiers in a country that did the United States no harm, but it's legitimate to question the usefulness of a system that tens of thousands of people have dedicated their lives to building so that we could have the freedom to even discuss its performance. This somehow reminds me of a misunderstood Biden quote about paying taxes.

I'll discuss the government's performance every day (USPS: A, DOT: C, TSA: F), but I won't discuss its validity. I don't want Somalia and Kazakhstan to be role models for the United States. There, you have two countries that have turned to capitalism and conservative leadership lately. Sarkozy may be a "conservative", but he favors protectionism. Not a particularly good role model either.

As to the food stamps, I'll copy an excellent passage from Wikipedia, attributed to Clement Atlee:

"The Prime Minister made much play last night with the rights of the individual and the dangers of people being ordered about by officials. I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others. There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day. I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the State, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners."

There was a time where poor people starved and succumbed to diseases related to malnutrition. With food stamps, we don't have to pay for the costs associated with these ills. Food stamps are an investment -- a small price to pay compared to the alternative. That's the basics of wealth generation: always undertake a project that has a positive financial outcome. Food stamps make sense if you run a government like a business: to generate wealth.

I don't buy the argument that no-gov't-intervention=wealth+freedom. If anything, it may mean less wealth overall and less freedom for most (19th century examples abound). We derive our wealth and freedom from centuries of government intervention. If our wealth and freedom are being compromised by powerful political lobbies (which I believe they are), it is our duty to defend ourselves and level the playing field (as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.").

I'm speculating, but I think poor cities are run by Democratic leaders because the poor want the tools they need to be competitive in the marketplace -- they want education, health care and enough protections to compete. That means, also, access to housing and capital. How do you know there isn't another Bill Gates or Henry Ford in the slums of Baltimore if you don't give these folks a fighting chance? You can't go from rags to riches if you don't even have access to rags! (yes, bad joke)

Yes, I know, there are folks out there that watch TV all day long, smoke pot and receive government handouts. That may be the price to pay for helping the other thousands that work hard, want to improve their lives and frankly, need our help. It's a small sacrifice for us to make.

Pragmatic guy said...

How did the US become a superpower?

Thanks to the breaking of monopolies, the gift of land to farmers, the purchase of right-of-ways to build railroads, the development of nuclear technology...

You get the point -- I could go on forever. No, without government intervention, there wouldn't be such a superpower. And that's *enlightened* intervention, not willy-nilly acquisition of means of production like the Soviets did.

Yes, capital markets, free enterprise etc. are the bedrock of a thriving economy. But this only happens if an enlightened government sticks its nose into the mix to actually ensure that the markets are *free* and unincumbered. "Free" is not the natural state of a market -- freedom needs to be enforced. The recent debacles are a case in point.

Ordinary Guy said...


I see what you are saying however I think where the base of the disagreement is coming from is the over extending of the federal powers from the government. I agree that we wouldn't have many things without major federal programs such as the space program and interstate program however both of those could arguably be counted under the "Provide for the National Defense" component.

Programs such as Social Security should not be managed by the Federal Government. The Founding Fathers give us hints that they felt that large, centralized government would defeat the republic and make us weaker in the long run. The local government should be concerned for the local and individual issues... the state for larger items and the federal government for the common defense. The Federal government has many more powers today then it had from the framers, and what the framers imagined.

Take any large company and look at the challenges they have with materializing efficiency when centralized. Why would anyone expect the federal government to be any better? Given that it is difficult at best (when altruistic people are involved) and impossible with most humans how can we say that it is a wise decision to invest more power in the federal government?

Now... If I can convince you that the management structure of a large organization is problematic... and the Federal Government is a VERY large organization... then you have to question the wisdom of anyone who would want to invest more power into a large organization and not decentralize it. I will then argue that the Democrats tend to be pro federal government as of late (recent history... past 20 years or so)... although the Republicans are not much better. I also would argue that what we really need is the people of this country to take back the management of our own government... a real republic.

As for the recent financial debacle... yes... I think the government should provide laws against people doing stupid things (derivatives trading is pretty dangerous) however if they want to do it, and they get caught on the wrong side (read:AIG) they should have to pay for their sins, not ask 'mom and dad' for a hand out to save their butts. Make bad choices, get in trouble, pay the price.

-End of Ramble

Pragmatic Guy said...


Yes, that makes a lot of sense. I also agree that concentration of power is a terrible idea. I can't possibly disagree with laissez-faire concentration of wealth and then support the centralized government's equivalent!

I sincerely hope the new government is going to loosen up TSA, plan for Social Security's perennity, partner with private health care providers to create universal health care, implement sunset provisions for every government bureau/department funding etc.

Not sure where they are going with the "stimulus package". Bush gave us three of those. I don't think we need a fourth plasma TV.

And I hope the government will fight tooth and nail to get our AIG money back.

Lucid Guy said...

Well, if nothing else, I got you guys talking.

Apologies all around for any name calling, but I don't back away from any of my original points.

There's too much to commment on in this string, so I will submit to clarify my position, when I use the word "Socialism", I use it to refer to a governments taking the productivity of its citizenry and distributing it as it sees fit for the "good" of the whole. This approach does not allow for private property rights, one of our most basic freedoms. Therefore, any move toward a Socialistic approach (using my definition) should be avoided at all costs.

Ordinary Guy said...


You got Three "Stimulus packages"? I only remember one... refresh my memory...


I like your definition of Socialism... and it fits here.

America USED to be a community of people who was known for its rugged individualism... Now we are all a community of brook trout looking for the next hand out. This will weaken us more than anything else.

Pragmatic Guy said...


You make an enormous leap between "taking the productivity of its citizenry" (I assume you mean taxation) and "not allow for private property rights" (I assume you mean the ability to own property as a corporate entity). I think there are a few steps between the two events, involving tyranny, anarchy or facism...


I was including the two checks taxpayers received in the last few years... another idiotic way of stimulating consumption. I personnally increase my consumption by increasing my wages. Now that's some long-term thinking.

Oklahoma City Divorce Attorney said...

The selling of the White House has been a long time coming - it's a sad but true reality.