Thursday, December 30, 2004

Taxing For Disaster

The recent tsunami (12/26/2004) which devastated Southeast Asia and East Africa is a horrible event. It is a literal calamity. The devastation and loss of life is widespread and staggering. It is a mind boggling event, the destructive part of the Earth in all her wonderful glory.

Of course this means the Left want to raise taxes.

Ignoring the fact that Americans send billions overseas in aid, recent immigrants to the US send billions more, and then our government still sends another 10 billion dollars to various countries, the Left see this as a perfect time for the US Government to raise taxes to send more money overseas.

Robert S. Rivkin, a San Francisco lawyer, and a contributor to the liberal journal “Pacific News Service” is clamoring that since the tsunami was so destructive and there was such wide spread devastation and loss of life, that Mr. Bush should propose a new surtax on the American populace to send overseas.

Rivkin, in all his liberal glory, has decided that since the American population is experiencing such compassion for those who have survived the tsunami that we would sit blindly while we are taxed more.

It flabbergasts me when liberals think this way. This is to say that Americans, by their nature, are not generous enough. This is to say that taking care of the poor and less fortunate is the responsibility of the Government rather than of the individual.

Of course I’m still looking for the Constitutional article or amendment which allows the US Government to financially take care of those citizens unable or unwilling to work, let alone those who are not citizens.

I am always amazed at the Left and their constant declarations of need for more taxes. It seems to me that if the federal government would stop sending our money to other countries then we would be in much better straights fiscally.

Of course this is just a part of an overreaching plan by the left to win some of the ‘moral’ voters over to their point of view. Recently liberals, such as Mrs. Clinton, have been claiming how Christianity is actually a socialist religion. Which I guess, if you look real closely, squint your eyes, give yourself a concussion and a lobotomy you could possibly see it as so. Unfortunately the thought that the government should provide for the poor by stealing from the productive is not to be found in the Bible. What the Bible teaches is that those who have the ability should willingly and happily give of themselves to help the poor. It should not be forced upon them to give by the government.

Of course Liberals always fail to understand that. They see themselves as compassionate and helping by forcing these taxes upon productive citizens. This just goes to show that a liberals compassion is limited only by the size of a Conservative’s wallet.

Tuesday, December 7, 2004

Free Speech, Democrat Style

While I would not personally hang a picture of a sitting President in my home or office, I would consider hanging a Presidential seal, or something similar. Of course not everyone shares my sensibilities. Case in point, a business owner in Lancaster County, PA has a photograph of Mr. Bush hanging in his stall. David Stoltzfus owns and operates the Upper Crust stand, when opening his business two years ago, he thought it would do well to display a picture of the sitting President. So he did, and it has been displayed there for two years now.

Of course, now that the Democrats have lost the election (okay, so it should be now that the Democrats were humiliated at the polls) a Democratic City Councilman is up in arms over the picture being displayed. Mr. Nelson Polite (the Councilman in question) went up to Mr. Stoltzfus on November 12 and asked the picture to be taken down. What were Polite’s reasons? Why since this was a public place, there should be no political paraphernalia, and since Mr. Bush did not carry Lancaster County, “it is like rubbing salt in a wound.” At least those are the ones he gave the reporter later on (click here for the newspaper article).

Let’s deal with that first reason to start off with. First, while yes the market may be a public place, Mr. Stoltzfus pays rent, as such he is able to display anything he deems fit. Secondly, our great nation allows us to have no lines on expressions of political speech. That is the essence of the First Amendment. If Mr. Stoltzfus wished to display a mock picture of Kerry and Little John in bed, that is Mr. Stoltzfus’ right as an American.

Of course, that is not the true issue that is affecting Polite. Polite is upset that Kerry lost. Now, in true Democratic fashion, he is trying to throw away anything that reminds him of his dashed hopes. So he’s trampling on the rights of a fellow citizen, Polite as a Liberal and a Democrat are only concerned about the rights of fellow citizens when such rights further liberal and socialist agendas. At any other time, rights are things to be stepped upon. Polite in his demands of city council to legislate free speech says “there should be rules.” Ah, the joys of being a Democrat, if you don’t like something, then you can legislate it to death.

Of course, Polite’s propensity to trample the rights of others notwithstanding, Polite’s comments reveal a deeper issue where Liberals are concerned. That of course is the plight of the offended. On November 12, when Polite first approached Mr. Stoltzfus, he requested that the picture be taken down because it offended him and other city Democrats (ah, that old salt feels good in those wounds). What this translates from liberal speak as is “I don’t agree with what you are doing or saying, so you need to stop.” Whenever a Liberal claims offense for their selves or some other group, what they are saying is that what the speaker is saying they cannot agree with nor can they logically defend their position against it.

The “OFFENSE” label has become the bane of logical discourse, for anything can offend someone, but of course the only people that get to claim offense at the actions or speech of others are liberals and those groups (or more accurately those who vote liberal in those groups) that are classically defined as liberal. Groups that are conservative and members of liberal groups that vote conservative are not allowed to claim offense. Just look at how liberals treat Mrs. Rice and Justice Thomas. Liberals, rather than being proud of what these two minorities have accomplished routinely insult and denigrate them because they are conservative.

Of course the entire appeal of liberalism is that it makes you feel good. It is government through emotionalism, which I consider the worst thing since religion through emotionalism. Of course maybe if enough Liberals learn there is no Santa Claus, they will grow up and stop living by their emotions. Government and business should both be approached with common sense and logic. If Legislation makes you feel better about yourself, then there’s probably something wrong with it.

Labels: , ,