About Me

Name: Miguel Diocuore...
Email: mikecorthell@roadrunner.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Obamacare and Terri Schiavo

Obamacare and Terri Schiavo


''The noise in the land that one hears in opposition to totalitarian health care is a welcome sound. Maybe the people finally are awakening. Perhaps they have seen the face of rationed care in the brutal, cruel, and prolonged death of Terri Schiavo. And perhaps they understand all too well for whom the Obamacare bell tolls.'' With the push for totalitarian health care by the Democratic leadership in the Congress, a question is begged: Whatever happened to Democrat calls for staying out of personal health-care decisions?
Do you remember how Democrats, in 2005, excoriated pro-life supporters for involving themselves in personal, private, family decisions during the battle for Terri Schiavo's right to live?
If you do not recall, allow me to refresh your memory:
March 20, 2005 – Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on Congressional involvement in the Terri Schiavo case:
"The case of Terri Schiavo is a sad and tragic situation. Congressional leaders have no
business substituting their judgment for that of multiple state courts that have extensively considered the issues in this intensely personal family matter. The actions of the majority in attempting to pass constitutionally dubious legislation are highly irregular and an improper use of legislative authority.
"Michael Schiavo is faced with a devastating decision, but, having been through the proper legal process, the decision for his wife's care belongs to him and to God.
"This rush to exploit a personal tragedy is not fair to those involved and will not create good policy."
Pelosi statement on Terri Schiavo case [Emphasis added]
Moreover, WND columnist Nat Hentoff, in
"Barack Obama vs. Terri Schiavo," covered then-Sen. and presidential candidate Obama's regret for his vote in the Terri Schiavo case:
When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."
Obama added: "I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better." [Emphasis added]
Well, isn't inserting government into nearly every health-care decision in America exactly what Obamacare would do now? Why is it all right to violate the sanctity of family decision-making now, when, in the Democrats' eyes, it wasn't in Terri Schiavo's case?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115160
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Doubling the size of the welfare state

Doubling the size of the welfare state


''We rejected Hillarycare in the 1990s. We must again reject the latest liberal invasion of marriage and look to "Marriage Values" policies provably beneficial to everyone – especially women and children.''

Feminists have exercised nearly unfettered control of Congress' social policy philosophy since the creation of the Great Society. That arrangement, designed to help a few women in trouble, evolved into an industry executing the feminist goal of destroying marriage. The ever-escalating demands to entitle non-marriage and out-of-wedlock procreation never end.
Welfare-state expansions have eviscerated the function of marriage. Marriage naturally guarantees women the economic support and domestic assistance of their husbands. The
feminist Oleanna is truly a nightmare burdening women with "doing it all" – earning a living, raising the children, doing the laundry and everything else around the household.
Welfare-state expansions brought on an explosion of divorce and illegitimacy only justifying another round of welfare-state expansions. Today, the welfare state costs approximately $1 trillion annually, nearly the size of the projected federal deficit, with no end in sight.
Democrats now hope to double the size of the welfare state by adding
health care to their long list of entitlements. Feminists hope to expand the destruction of marriage by dragging the medical profession, businesses and taxpayers into the grandest expansion the Great Society has ever proposed.
National health-care reform is a Trojan horse guaranteed to strongly incentivize non-marriage, particularly in the middle class.
According to the Center for American Progress, 24.5 percent of unmarried women lack health insurance. Only 14.7 percent of married women lack coverage. Surprisingly, poor unmarried women are more likely to have coverage than their married counterparts due to government assistance programs.
The National Center for Health Statistics
reports unmarried women aged 25–64 are about 60 percent more likely than married women to lack health insurance coverage. The NCHS message is unmistakable: "Marriage affects health insurance coverage. As marriage rates in the United States decline, fewer women will have the opportunity to obtain health insurance coverage through their spouse. Marriage can also increase family income and may make health insurance more affordable." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115132
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's a freedom issue, not a health-care issue

It's a freedom issue, not a health-care issue


''Like most people who have finally stopped celebrating the election of America's first "black" president, Limbaugh sees a landslide for Republicans in 2010. But the one thing he did not say – something that I've been warning about since BHO was elected – is that there may not be elections in 2010.''

I caught the last part of Chris Wallace's interview with Rush Limbaugh last Sunday and was pleased to have it confirmed as being a huge success. That confirmation came from David Axelrod on CBS' "Face the Nation" when he dismissed Limbaugh as an entertainer.
Said Axelrod, "He does it every day on radio. He's
marketing the outrageous. And he does very well with it. But, as I said, he's an entertainer. We've got bigger responsibilities."
Funny, and here all this time I thought it was BHO who was marketing the outrageous, with government-run
health care being his latest ShamWow. But there's no question that BHO and The Boys have bigger responsibilities – like, for example, fundamentally changing a democratic republic into a socialist police state.
One thing kids should be taught at a young age is that when someone belittles another person's words and dismisses him as a kook, an entertainer or "not a serious person," it's usually a sign of fear, jealousy or both. Intelligent, mature adults of goodwill do not dismiss opposing viewpoints. They listen, weigh what the other person has to say, then, if warranted, express their disagreement in a civilized manner.
What would it look like if the federal behemoth were severely cut down to size? Read Wayne Allyn Root's prescription for the nation in "The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts"
The far left is almost embarrassingly childish in using the same old, not-so-clever tactic against everyone who opposes its views, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck being two other prominent targets that come to mind.
What is obvious to anyone who doesn't wear a Marxist
pacemaker is that, in reality, the White House and the progressive Congress are terrified of folks like Limbaugh, Palin and Beck – not to mention John Stossel, Sean Hannity and a long list of conservative talk-radio hosts – and, of course, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Jim DeMint and a number of other libertarian-centered conservatives operating in the belly of the beast. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115131
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do you believe the attack at Fort Hood was a terrorist act?

Do you believe the attack at Fort Hood was a terrorist act? this is a poll

 

 

 

Did he do it for Allah?





 


 

 

Treason in the House


''In other words, there is nothing Congress can't do if it involved interstate commerce, in the eyes of Pelosi and her colleagues who plan to take control of America's health-care system because they know better than you and your doctor. Arrogance. Chutzpah. Contemptuousness. Insolence. Pomposity. Look in the mirror, Nancy Pelosi. What do you see? But it's worse than that, dare I say. It's treason.'' It was a simple question.
It was the kind of question legendary members of Congresses past would have asked themselves about pending legislation.
In fact, it was the kind of question that shouldn't need to be asked of a U.S. speaker of the
House.
But, obviously, it is the kind of question that is not being asked frequently enough of such officials.
It came more than a week ago from a member of the "alternative" media, and it was indeed directed to Nancy Pelosi.
It went like this: "Madame Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health
insurance mandate?"
As I said: simple, straightforward, respectful.
Yet, listen to response. It is anything but. The hesitation in her answer suggests confusion, disorientation, stunned bemusement.
Go "green" and let the world know what really needs recycling in 2010 with the magnetic bumper sticker: "Recycle Congress"
"Are you serious?" she finally offers. "Are you serious?"
"Yes, yes I am," responded the report from CNSNews.com


 
 
  • Did he do it for Allah?
  • GOP Trash
  • President Obama is now a victim of candidate Obama...
  • Southern rubes aren't racists after all
  • The Commies never went away
  • Redistributing whose wealth?
  • Obamacare and Terri Schiavo
  • Doubling the size of the welfare state
  • It's a freedom issue, not a health-care issue
  • Do you believe the attack at Fort Hood was a terro...
  • Treason in the House
  • Military jihadists in every branch of service
  • How a state turns red
  • Unjustly imprisoned sailor speaks out
  •  

     

    ''I see the moon and moon sees me''

     

      
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Treason in the House

    Treason in the House


    ''In other words, there is nothing Congress can't do if it involved interstate commerce, in the eyes of Pelosi and her colleagues who plan to take control of America's health-care system because they know better than you and your doctor. Arrogance. Chutzpah. Contemptuousness. Insolence. Pomposity. Look in the mirror, Nancy Pelosi. What do you see? But it's worse than that, dare I say. It's treason.'' It was a simple question.
    It was the kind of question legendary members of Congresses past would have asked themselves about pending legislation.
    In fact, it was the kind of question that shouldn't need to be asked of a U.S. speaker of the
    House.
    But, obviously, it is the kind of question that is not being asked frequently enough of such officials.
    It came more than a week ago from a member of the "alternative" media, and it was indeed directed to Nancy Pelosi.
    It went like this: "Madame Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health
    insurance mandate?"
    As I said: simple, straightforward, respectful.
    Yet, listen to response. It is anything but. The hesitation in her answer suggests confusion, disorientation, stunned bemusement.
    Go "green" and let the world know what really needs recycling in 2010 with the magnetic bumper sticker: "Recycle Congress"
    "Are you serious?" she finally offers. "Are you serious?"
    "Yes, yes I am," responded the report from CNSNews.com
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115143
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Military jihadists in every branch of service

    Military jihadists in every branch of service


    ''Quoting from a classified military briefing, "Muslim Mafia" reveals that this Fifth Column has penetrated "every branch of the U.S. military." The Islamist enemy has even infiltrated the al-Qaida detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''

    "Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor." That's what Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan said about America before he and possibly other Muslim soldiers at Fort Hood shot 43 fellow soldiers, killing 12, who were returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
    "He said Muslims had a right to attack" the U.S., said Col. Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at the Texas post, where the devout Sunni Muslim refused deployment. "He said Muslims shouldn't be fighting Muslims," he added. "He was very clear on that."
    Shockingly, a growing number of other Muslim American soldiers as well as civilian contractors have put their religion before their duty. Some like Hasan have killed, or tried to kill, their fellow soldiers. Others have infiltrated the military in order to undermine it and aid and comfort the enemy.
    According to an explosive new book,
    "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating within the ranks of the U.S. military – which is too blinded by political correctness to see the threat. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115218
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    How a state turns red

    How a state turns red

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Unjustly imprisoned sailor speaks out

    Unjustly imprisoned sailor speaks out


    "To not be a voice for an injustice is an injustice in itself." So writes 32-year-old Steven Nary from his cell at California's Avenal State Prison.
    Nary has been in a California prison every single day of his life since March 1996. The reason why is hard to believe.
    As an 18-year-old sailor on leave in San Francisco, Nary was lured from a co-ed dance club to the apartment of a gay predator, Juan Pifarre, under false pretenses.
    When the coked-up Pifarre tried to rape Nary, the sailor, though drunk and possibly drugged, fought back and killed him unintentionally.
    No matter. In October 1999, a San Francisco jury convicted Nary of second-degree murder and sentenced him to 16 years to life despite the fact that the "victim" was a known predator with at least two prior arrests on sexual charges.
    Unfortunately for Nary, the well-wired Pifarre was better known at City Hall as a leading Hispanic activist and publisher.
    In June 2009, Nary's exceptional prison record did not dissuade California from denying Nary parole for at least five more years.
    In a state where interest-group dynamics trump individual justice, Nary never had a chance. "The panel feels that you haven't fully explored the totality and magnitude of this commitment offense," said the Parole Board chairman at hearing's end.
    Freed of the need to conform to the state's Orwellian take on contrition, Nary has attempted to explain how he feels in the hope of encouraging other victims of sexual assault, male or female, to speak out.
    Other than a very few minor grammatical corrections, the following has not been edited. Although discreetly written, this is not for children.
    The horror that dwells within
    I have never been able to fully express to others what happened to me. The obvious reasons are my fear of judgment and my desire to not be labeled a victim.
    In addition, how do I define what happened to me: Was it a sexual assault, was it a rape, or was it all my fault and should it be defined as a sexual encounter gone wrong?
    I do not believe that the latter is the case, but how does a man, even if he was still a kid at the age of 18, legally an adult, yet legally too young to drink, get raped?
    Prison adds an element that has made this even more difficult. Prison isn't a place to appear weak or victimized, especially as a rape victim. Yes, I feel alone and daily I relive this event that acts like a vampire to my very being.
    It is hard to close my eyes some nights or even watch certain shows because of the strong sensation it evokes.
    A nasty mind trick that creates a feeling of being touched by the predator. A feeling that causes my hair to become filled with static and my body filled with goosebumps. A fear appears and suddenly the smell of his sweat and the lustful stench feeds the experience.
    My heart starts pounding and beads of sweat start pushing through my pores. My neck starts to feel hot, and I become agitated as tears flow out of my eyes: drip, drop, drip, drop.
    Sometimes I am able to snap out of the apparent hypnotic state, usually only because of noise around me or knowing people are present.

    However, there are times when this event enters the solace of my sleep and intensifies. There have been nights that I wake up underneath my covers, and my body is flushed with every ounce of sweat, but I don't realize where I am and I am so scared to come out from the dark covers because I fear that he will be there.
    To be paralyzed, but seem functional, is a contradiction that baffles me. To not have the ability, beyond saying no, to resist this man pulling my shorts down and oral copulating me, leaves me with even more questions.
    My attempts to say no prior meant nothing to him. My attempts to say no to his demand for more meant nothing as well. My mind began racing as I rolled to my side.
    I hoped that it was a nightmare. I was disgusted, angry, and ashamed that I could not do anything to resist this man. I felt dirty and I thought a shower could somehow wash it away.
    However, he wouldn't stop and began to try to have anal sex with me. He kept touching me, struggling to pull my shorts down, and succeeding just enough to start.
    The hardest part of this whole event is to admit that he kept trying and trying and yes, pushed himself against my anus several times, which sparked my reaction.
    Yes, my reaction was violent, and I am sorry for taking a life, which was not my intention, and I live with that as well.
    However, I am frustrated that I have to keep saying that I am sorry because it takes away from what happened to me.
    What was I supposed to do? Was I supposed to allow this man to do whatever he wanted to do with me?
    I am often asked, "But why the rage?" Even the Parole Board wondered this. So many people think that I must have learned this violence somewhere.
    Why is it so hard to understand the violation of one's body is enough to see the deepest of emotions come out? The fact is that prior to that night I never experienced or felt such emotions before, let alone understood how to handle it.
    There are many life occurrences that can't be related to unless you have experienced them – dealing with a terminal illness, the death of a loved one, and being sexually abused, assaulted, or raped.
    I hope that the few words that have been said can be a motivation for others to speak out. I know it is not easy.
    I may end up spending the rest of my life in prison because I have trouble articulating this to a parole board that somehow came up with the conclusion that I wanted this to happen.
    Unfortunately, this seems to be a common reaction from people who hear of such stories. To all victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and rape, I am so sorry!
    I do not know of the experience you went through, but I empathize with your pain. I know that you did not want it to happen, and I know the horror that dwells within.
    Steven Nary can be reached at:
    P-61614ASP, 250-1-55 upP.O. Box 9Avenal, CA 93204

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Anti-Anglo racist tripe

    Anti-Anglo racist tripe


    ''This is a thoroughly evil book. I do not understand how the Hachette Book Group justifies mass-producing this racist tripe. This is not literature; this is a La Raza fantasy of the "reconquista" – a Chicano nationalist movement that seeks to retake portions of the United States in the name of Hispanic racial and social justice. It is hate and an invitation to cold-blooded murder in the name of hate.'' Books are technology. Since the invention of the movable-type printing press, when Johannes Gutenberg gave the world a vastly more efficient, mechanical means of producing books, to produce a book is potentially to reach a vast audience. When you can communicate a message to multiple human beings, you can, at least possibly, affect society – for good or for ill.
    As we discussed previously in Technocracy, the increasing popularity and relatively low cost of print-on-demand (POD) publishing firms has made it possible for virtually any citizen to produce a book. Technology cannot, of course, work true miracles, and most self-published books will never reach beyond a small circle of friends and family. A book that reaches your local brick-and-mortar store, however, can catch the attention of passersby. We've become all too accustomed to ignoring flashing, blinking, moving advertisements on our computer screens, deluged with data, choices and purchasing options as we are when browsing the Web on the network of networks that is the Internet. A colorful book cover with an intriguing slogan, however, can still hook us. In this way, Gutenberg's technological legacy persists. Books carry messages, and those messages can have a profound effect on modern society.
    Never was this more apparent than in the days following the
    Oklahoma City bombing. In countless news pieces, we were told that bomber Timothy McVeigh – since rushed to his execution with his cooperation – was inspired to commit the act by the book "The Turner Diaries." This is a novel written by a white supremacist who fantasizes about a future in which his white-power protagonists will finally hang their other-racial enemies, while striking explosive blows against an oppressive government secretly run by a Jewish conspiracy. The author has written (crudely, in a style that borders on illiterate) another book called "Hunter," about a fellow whose hobbies include shooting interracial couples for fun.
    I did this research in the months following the Oklahoma City bombing. In the intervening years I forgot most of it, gratefully. When you immerse yourself in racist hate literature, it creates a sensation akin to dipping your head in a bucket of garbage. It is cloying, smothering, fetid and unpleasant; you can't wait to remove yourself from it. All of this came flooding back to me when I happened across a copy of "America Libre" by Raul Ramos y Sanchez.
    Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Find out in DVD documentary "Conquest of Aztlan"
    On his
    website, the author claims he wrote the book "as a wake-up call to the dangers of extremism – on both sides of this explosive issue. Illegal immigration is a hotly debated topic. Yet it is only the tip of the iceberg." The first portion of this statement is a blatant lie. "America Libre" is nothing less than a Chicano nationalist "Turner Diaries," a racist, hate-filled screed that gins up anti-Anglo resentment by painting a fantasy landscape in which all Hispanics are rounded up and put in camps. Ramos' heroes revolt, hoping to create a U.N.-recognized "Hispanic Republic of North America." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114998
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Islam's world peace: Now or later?

    Islam's world peace: Now or later?


    ''Thus, the dilemma for the West is that the more it bends over backwards in unprecedented ways to show acceptance of Islam, the more moderate Muslims become enthused and gravitate to become fundamental Muslims.''

    Islam is a religion of peace, but in the world of paradoxical definitions, perhaps some explanation is needed.
    The word "Islam" means submission to the will of Allah.
    A "Muslim" is one who has submitted.
    Whereas most think world peace will be when people just learn how to get along, faithful Muslims think world peace will be when the whole world submits to the will of Allah.
    In other words, world peace means world Islam.
    To a fundamental Muslim, submission to Allah means submitting to Islamic law, called Shariah.
    A jaw-dropping expose on the six-month undercover operation that revealed the true terror-supporting nature of CAIR: "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America." It's also available in electronic form at reduced price through Scribd.
    Islamic Shariah law governs every aspect of human life, including:
    what to believe
    what to eat
    how to dress
    when to pray
    in what direction to pray
    what position to be in when you pray
    how many wives to have
    the correct way to beat a wife
    who must accompany a woman in public
    who cannot be your friends
    how to treat a non-Muslim infidel
    whether to drink alcohol
    when to lie
    when to kill an apostate
    how to run a government
    how to cut off the hand of a thief
    how many times to whip a woman who has been raped
    whether one can listen to music
    whether one can play a musical instrument
    what pets are permitted
    how to wash parts of
    your body
    the correct way to clean you teeth
    with a twig
    and even what direction to face when using the restroom!
    Islamic Shariah law is the complete submission of one's life, marriage, family,
    community and country to the will of Allah as revealed to Muhammad.
    In its fullest sense, the word "Islam" actually means the opposite of the words "freedom" and "liberty."
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114997
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    What would an illegitimate government look like?

    What would an illegitimate government look like?


    ''Is it possible that such a government would use public funds to bail out its corporate friends and contributors – while letting competitors die, leaving their stockholders ruined? Might an illegitimate government refuse to hand over details of how public funds were being spent? Records indicating who was benefiting? Communications and intimidating meetings with corporate executives?'' Lately, I find myself wondering, what would an illegitimate government look like?
    Might it be one where – when the speaker of the House is asked for the constitutional authority that permits government-mandated
    health care
    – her response is: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
    Perhaps it would be a government where, when citizens demand to see evidence that the nation's highest elected official meets the qualifications set down in the Constitution to hold that office, all three branches of government spend public money to deny those concerned citizens that right.
    Could it be a government that passes laws prohibiting criticism of its supporters and their "lifestyles" – and mandates criminal punishments against those who speak out – even when those "lifestyles" are socially destructive?
    Maybe it would be a government that declines to prosecute voter intimidation by its supporters. Or a government that encourages and financially aids criminal organizations that register nonexistent voters to win "tight" elections, while they destroy the registrations opposition voters in good faith gave to them.
    Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: "A Question of Eligibility: Is Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?"
    Perhaps it is a government that declines to prosecute friendly journalists for criminal activity (
    "Sycophancy has its Rewards").
    Or maybe it's a government that pays for the wholesale abortion of its own citizens – while encouraging citizens of other nations and foreign political persuasions to enter the country illegally and demand public services – and then seeks amnesty for them and the crimes they have committed.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115013
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Enemies of the 1st Amendment

    Enemies of the 1st Amendment


    He just needs to drag them [the American people] to it. Like I just said, they're stupid. Get health care done.
    – Comedian Bill Maher, Aug. 25, 2009, on "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien"

    I recently read a posting on a social networking site that made me laugh, despite the fact that it had some truly sad features. It was posted by someone I knew years ago, and she was "discussing" aspects of health-care reform and those who oppose the measures currently being proposed by President Obama and Congress. To her, the entire "health care crisis" is the fault of corporate insurance providers.
    Well, she was a bubblehead in
    high school
    , so I suppose I shouldn't have been entirely surprised. It was, as I said, both amusing and distressing to hear this woman – a white, middle-class gal – going on like Natasha Fatale from "Rocky and Bullwinkle" about "fat capitalists" with their "fat fingers on the scale," cheating "the workers." Apparently, even the corner grocer, just a guy with a small business
    , is somehow an evil, avaricious thief. I would add that the health-care situation in the U.S. doesn't even concern her; in her haste to become euro-trash, she actually moved to a castrated, socialistic European nation years ago.
    The above estimation – one held by an unsettling number of Americans – reflects two even more unsettling truths: One is that such people possess no sense of
    economic
    literacy whatsoever; they are simply not aware of the dynamics of the system in which they live and how it sustains them. Two, they have bought into the belief that those who produce should somehow be in a position of thralldom to those who consume, whether it is a corner grocer or a conglomerate.
    How can you counter the liberal corrosion that has filtered into every issue affecting our daily lives? Find out in Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto"
    This is a communistic view, of course, and is only one step away from a system in which the state evaluates aptitudes and assigns occupations, as well as redistributing resources, à la Ayn Rand's novella, "Anthem."
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115008
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive