The Angry Patriot

Forced Charity (um, oxymoron?)

2009-03-11T15:29:00.001-07:00

(From prior to the election):
Anybody watch the debate again tonight? I could only stand about five minutes of the bs. I just want to bang my head against the wall and bash my brains out. Does nobody care anymore about the direction and fate of this place we call HOME? Consider this:

Both candidates, in discussing the economy, spoke of new projects AND tax cuts. Neither mentioned cutting government spending. Everybody knows from personal experience, when you are in debt, you DON’T INCREASE SPENDING and still cut back on your revenue! We will never work our way out of the ten trillion dollar national debt if these are the attitudes of the two presidential candidates the media has presented to us. Want to pay off the national debt we owe China (an INHERENT danger!)? No universal health care. Sorry, Obama. No buying bad mortgages. No way, McCain.

If we really want to fix the economy, we need to settle our debts and cut spending. End entitlement programs overnight. Stop foreign aid. These are not the purposes of our tax dollars. Medicare, welfare, social security, stop them all. The government has no right to take yours and my tax dollars and redistribute them as they see necessary enough to buy their public offices. Theft is theft, no matter who the thief is. Let’s roll back all the horrific changes that started with Roosevelt and the Great Society and every social abomination since then. Charity is not charity if it is forced upon the constituency. Besides, churches and Non-Government Organizations can ALWAYS do a much better job in communities than the government can.

Here’s an excerpt from Ted Nugent’s latest book, “Ted, White, and Blue.” It’s a little long, but definitely worth the read. The conversation is between Congressman Crockett and one of his constituents. "But Lukas, the Nuge is an extremist, how can you read that?" Stop it, hippie. Take a shower, sit down, and read, if your LSD scorched brain still knows how:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way."

"The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business, and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a Praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill."

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them."

"So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags, and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow, when I asked him if he could give me a chew of tobacco."

"Yes," said he, "such as we make and use in this part of the country; but it may not suit your taste, as you are probably in the habit of using better." "With that he pulled out of his pocket part of a twist in its natural state, and handed it to me. I took a chew, and handed it back to him. He turned to his plow, and was about to start off. I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted," He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.""I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and---"
"Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight. But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was. I had heard of no complaints against me, except that some of the dandies about the village ridiculed some of the wild and foolish things that I too often say and do, and said that I was not enough of a gentleman to go to Congress. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest." "Thank you for that, but you find fault with only one vote. You know the story of Henry Clay, the old huntsman and the rifle; you wouldn't break your gun for one snap."
"No, nor for a dozen. As the story goes, that tack served Mr. Clay's purpose admirably, though it really had nothing to do with the case. I would not break the gun, nor would I discard an honest representative for a mistake in judgment as a mere matter of policy. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity!"
"Here was another sockdologer; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: "Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the Government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive, what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

"I have given you," continued Crockett, "an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying: "So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: "Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it, than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

And Ted Nugent’s words: “The only real difference between the $20,000 Congressman Crockett voted for the Georgetown fire and the over $2,000,000,000 Congress approved to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina is the number of zeroes. The principle of Constitutional authority remains the same. So long as Congress believes they have a right to appropriate our money for charitable purposes, they will continue to give our tax dollars away or waste them with impunity.” (Nugent, 106)

Good luck finding a politician who understands the severity of this nowadays. Both parties know that through spending they can buy your vote. And the damndest thing is that they use YOUR and MY tax dollars to do so. Yeah, those taxes taken from my check for medicare are buying democrats government positions. WTF!!!

This has to stop. The only way to fix the debt is to fix the out of control spending. We are BANKRUPT. Hard facts to face, but that doesn’t matter. Truth is truth, tough.

A Caring Government?

2009-03-11T15:17:00.000-07:00

So I've been a little quiet lately since we the people decided to elected Barrack O'Promise, but that's ok, since it's given me some time to think and listen to lots of the Jerry Doyle radio show. I heard some interesting stats the other night, food for thought, if you will, and decided to do a little rough number crunching of my own. Let me start by saying that it's the premise that's important here, not the exact dollar amount (everything is rounded anyways). But keep an open mind, especially those who voted for "hope," and decide for yourselves whether or not the government is on our side and really wants to take care of the less fortunate in our country.

Consider this:In fiscal year 2007, the budget of the Department of Health and Human Services was $700 billion. To those who enjoy complaining about how much we spend on our soldiers (damn hippies), this is $100 billion more than allocated for the Department of Defense. Granted, it doesn't include the cost during war time- just the base line. But anyways, $700 billion for Health and Human Services, encompassing all sorts of government goodies for we the people. http://www.federalbudget.com/

Now, according to the government definition of poverty, in 2007 there were 293,744 individuals over the age of 15 living below the poverty line in the United States. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/acs-09.pdf How does the government determine who qualifies as poor? I don't know, look at my earnings statement after Uncle Sam dips his hand in my pocket (pervert!) and you should have a pretty good idea. But seriously, it's based on a few factors: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html

Alright, after doing some simple division, consider this: if we were to eliminate the Department of Health and Human Services, which is supposed to "care" for the less fortunate in this country, and instead write a check to every person qualifying as poor in this country (individual, not family), they would receive a check for $2,383,000.Now, I know, DHHS takes care of more than welfare, they deal with medicare too. Big deal. Drop the amount to, per family, $500,000. The point remains. Does government really care? Is it capable of caring? Of course they don't. You know why? If they really cared to fix the problem of poverty in the United States, guess what: nobody would need them anymore. They wouldn't be able to get re-elected by holding government handouts over their constituency's heads. He who makes the biggest promises wins the office. Government cares all the way to the election box, and that's where it ends. Number 44 anyone?

What's my point in all this? I guess to try to get people to see that the government is incapable of caring for those that we should be caring for for ourselves. Yeah, it's convenient to vote someone into office who's going to "do" the job for you, but in reality, you're not helping anyone. The cycle continues, and people remain dependent on whether or not the government is going to cut them a measly check. There are three things the government can do right: military, police, and fire. Everything else winds up a waste. Besides, what is the true purpose of our government? "Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty..." And if you think they meant welfare as checks to poor people, I ought to slap your dumbass. Use your brains people!

Show Me the Money!

2009-03-11T12:26:00.000-07:00

Or not. We won't be seeing a dime. This most recent passage of a "stimulus" package by the Senate is a complete joke. I've been watching the news all morning to find out more about it, and all I can see is that it will increase funding for education and health care. Neither of which will amount to "economic stimulus." All I keep seeing is the replay of portions of a memorial for Caylee Anthony. I'm sure we all know who Caylee Anthony is, but yet cannot name a single facet of this bailout bs. Which got me thinking about the election and Obama's first few weeks in general...Ali showed me an interesting video the other day, and I'm sure any of you who voted for him will take offense, but whatever. Truth hurts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

Now let's take a look at Obama's first few weeks (what we do know):
1. Signs executive order to close GITMO to appease a certain portion of voters who elected him. That's all fine and dandy, if you have a plan in place for where to put the detainees now. Does he? Nope. Just make sure we close GITMO. Outstanding.

2. Signs another executive order lifting the ban on overseas abortion funding that Bush had put into place after taking office. Regardless of your view on abortion, is that ever supposed to be a function of our tax dollars? Especially considering our current economic state. Why would we want to send ANY money overseas for any purpose, especially for abortion?

3. Appoints a variable plethera of tax cheats and incompetents to cabinet and other high-ranking positions. Timothy Geithner? Head of the IRS, and the man can't pay his own taxes. Not to mention that he was in a powerful position at the Federal Reserve Bank when this whole economic downturn began. Should he be rewarded with an even more powerful position? If I cheat on my taxes, I get penalized and jail time, at worst. No matter the reason/intent. Then there's Tom Daschle, who withdrew his name for Health and Human Services Secretary after it was discovered that he has failed to pay some $140,000 in taxes. This Senator should be DISMISSED. There was one other appointment too, I can't remember her name, who had tax issues. If you politicians want to be giving away my tax dollars, I suggest you throw yours in the pot first. And then there's Obama's appointment for CIA Director, Leon Panetta. A spokesman for Clinton and former CA Congressman (there's the problem), the only reason he's been selected is because of his stance on torture. Well, surely he's qualified then? Nope. No prior intel experience. The only thing I require of my government, defense from foreign threats, and Obama makes a political appointment rather than a qualified appointment. Sigh...

4. Obama pushes for an economic stimulus package to "re-vitalize" the ailing American economy. If you buy that, then, well, I guess you could say you really have been brainwashed by Obama. Only 37% of Americans currently support this piece of you-know-what, which continues to fall since it was proposed. And just what do we know about what's in the bill? Take a moment and think for yourself, what do you know about it? That Obama says we need to pass it? That we'll collapse without this bill?

Which brings me to my next point: all hippies who bitched about former President Bush using "fear" as a means of passing the Patriot Act, what would you call this? Utilizing fear to pass a rotten stimulus package is no different. Especially when you consider that the main focus of the bill is not stimulus, but an expansion of Johnson's "Great Society." A modern-day FDR, if you will. Don't know what that is? Look it up. And then consider this: FDR's involvement during the Great Depression, according to some analysts, may have extended the depression by another 8 years. So do we urgently need to pass this stimulus package, or does Congress need to dialogue about what the true causes are and how best to address them? When congressmen say we need to get credit flowing, perhaps we instead need to think about whether or not "credit" got us into this mess in the first place.

So what is in the current "stimulus" package? Take a look for yourself:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2276.cfm http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/09/compromise-101-meet-the-new-stimulus-same-as-the-old-stimulus/
This bill is an expansion of socialist ideals, nothing more. And it makes these entitlements PERMANENT. Earned Income Tax Credit? Just a means of passing a tax refund from one tax-payer's pocket into the pocket of someone else who doesn't earn enough for a refund, because they didn't pay any income tax. It's not a refund if you didn't spend any money in the first place...
This bill also includes tax money for smoking cessation programs. At the same time, the bill proposes a tax increase on tobacco products, with the funds going towards children's health care. Does that sound like stimulus? Not to me...And I'm confused- do you want me to blaze one for the kids or not?
Here's a couple of other issues to consider regarding the stimulus: jobs for illegals? Why not require employers to use E-verify, like they should? http://www.cis.org/SenateStimulus
Approval/Support for the bill:
http://simplethoughts-complexmind.blogspot.com/2009/02/stimulus-package-approval-rating-is.html
Why is Congress so quick to pass this P.O.S. bill when the more we find out about it the more it stinks? Read through the stuff that comes out of a bull's backside, people. The news is failing to display what's in the bill. You have to find out for yourself, then decide the appropriate course of action. Call your senator or congressman? Sure. Stop buying things you don't need so the government gets even less of your tax dollars? Absolutely.
Keep informed, people. It's a lack of information that gets unqualified individuals elected. It's a lack of information that allows people to continuously do what they want. We knew nothing of Obama when we elected him, we know nothing of this stimulus package now...

One last tidbit for you Californians out there. In case you didn't know, the People's Republic of California won't be issuing immediate refund checks this year if you overpaid on your taxes, just IOUs. How is that legal? It's not, but anyways, my grandpa recently informed me of a way to get your money even if the state refuses to give it to you. Rather than requesting a refund check, just have that amount, whatever it is, applied as a credit to your refund for the next fiscal year. Then, increase your state exemptions accordingly for a few months. You'll be giving yourself your money back. Take that, stupid state!

Ass-backwards

2009-03-11T12:01:00.000-07:00

So, sorry if you find the title offensive, but it seemed like the only thing that would encompass the following rant (get over it). I was listening, once again, to the radio last night and watching the news, and apparently President Obama held a little press conference this morning. While listening to him speak of his budget plans and proposed defense cuts, something just clicked in my head. Let me see if I can make this clear as mud:

Obama has repeatedly said that he does not want to pass on a burdensome debt to future generations, after signing the largest spending bill in history. He said it was necessary to get the economy back on track. Over one trillion in debt and future liabilities with the stroke of a pen. And what kind of economic "stimulus" do we get for our money? Well, not really for our money, for the debt we incur and the bonds we attempt to sell, but anyways, Obama's "stimulus" focuses on welfare/health care/education/green energy. Hmm...on the surface, does any of this look like stimulus? Nope. Looks like an agenda disguised as stimulus. Now here's the part that gets my panties in a bunch: How are we funding these so-called non-stimulus programs? Through the sale of bonds and other b.s. what nots. Who's buying? Well, let's see where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a couple weeks ago- China. Clinton traveled to China and in not-so-many words attempted to convince the Chinese that we're good on our IOU's and to keep buying our debt.

Now all you Obama voters, here me out: you won. Obama opens the pocket book (mine included) and he gets a new government position. You got your Robin Hood. You are using the government to pass out checks, feed people, wipe their asses in hospice, send them to school, and basically make them reliant on our government from birth through death. And it probably makes you feel good, because now you don't have to go out and take care of anyone on your own. All you had to do was cast a ballot and let government inefficiency take over. Here's my question to you: what was the cost? At what price? 1 trillion? More? No:

Freedom. We have made ourselves slaves. Another country owns us. Scratch that, it's not just one country. Multiple. We have sold ourselves, and for what? A foodstamp here, pell grant there? You've made yourselves subserviant to your government, and they in turn have sold you to the likes of China. Your desire for a caring government has enslaved us all, and we may never pay this debt back.

I've said before, the only thing I require of my government is defense. And this administration, as well as others before it, have turned their backs on this fundamental constitutional directive. And FOR WHAT? I hope you're happy now...Think about this: everyone in this country who gets some form of handout from this government, what the hell would you do if there was no government? That's how we should all be living. Be free, be independent. Be TRULY free. If the government would leave us alone, we would find a way to survive. I guarantee it. And all you Darwinists out there, quit using the government to interfere with natural selection.

Selling us to another country? Our forefathers would have labeled this treason...

"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 (not guarantee) of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."