In the last post made to this blog I spoke about a letter I would be drafting for those entering the 2010 congressional elections. My intent is to outline for those seeking my vote exactly what it would take to earn my support. There are a lot of incumbents across the country who will be seeking re-election. There are also many challengers who feel they will be better suited to represent the people within their states and districts. In a few cases the sitting senators or elected representatives are retiring from office, and new candidates from both parties will be seeking to fill their vacant seats.
In fairness to those who will be campaigning for my vote, and in an attempt to use my vote to shape the direction of our nation in the way I believe to be most appropriate, I have pulled together this letter to outline for them what I expect of the successful candidate. The way I see it, candidates for office are actually applicants applying for a job. It is you and I collectively who make the hiring decision. It would not be fair to hire someone for a job if they did not know what was expected of them, right?
Our country is at a cross-roads. We are going to either preserve the nation and system of government inspired by God and laid out by our founding fathers, or we are going to witness the founding of a new America. The are many clamoring to be the founding fathers of a new nation that will have very little resemblance to the land we know and love. Our votes in the upcoming elections are not just votes for individual candidates, they are votes for what future we want to see for America. As outlined in the last post, some citizens in a few states have already started to let their voices be heard. They shouted a clear message. . . with their votes. We can do the same.
And so, back to the letter. I have provided the link below to a letter that I will be sending to those seeking office in my home state in the 2010 mid-term elections. I want them to know where I stand and where they need to stand if they want my vote and any influence I wield in shaping the opinions, and thereby the votes, of others.
Letter to Candidates For Office
I invite all to join me in this. You are welcome to use my letter if you would like. And by all means, please share with anyone else who you feel may adhere to the same views and would send the letter to those seeking office in their area. Or, perhaps this has stirred some thoughts in your own minds and you'd like to draft a letter of your own. I would love to see the offices of all candidates seeking office in 2010 flooded with such letters.
To help you with this, if you are interested, I'm also including the following link to see who is running for open seats in November across all 50 states for both Senate and House. Simply click on your state to see who is running for each position, and determine who you want to send a letter to.
Who's Running In My State -- House and Senate
If you draft a letter of your own, please share with the rest of us to help stimulate ideas. If you choose to use my letter, I apologize for my long windedness (if that's even a word), but I hope you can use it nonetheless. Together we can join to make a cascade of voices that will be heard and respected by those seeking to represent us.
Thanks and God bless. . .
Richard
_________________________________________________________________
All Class III Senate seats are up for re-election in November of 2010:
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennet, Michael F. (D-CO)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Burris, Roland W. (D-IL)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Dorgan, Byron L. (D-ND)
Feingold, Russell D. (D-WI)
Inouye, Daniel K. (D-HI)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR)
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD)
Murray, Patty (D-WA)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Specter, Arlen (D-PA)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)
Bennett, Robert F. (R-UT)
Bond, Christopher S. (R-MO) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Brownback, Sam (R-KS) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Burr, Richard (R-NC)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Crapo, Mike (R-ID)
DeMint, Jim (R-SC)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
LeMieux, George S. (R-FL) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
McCain, John (R-AZ)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL)
Thune, John (R-SD)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Voinovich, George V. (R-OH) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Small Victories
Its easy to be disheartened when so many things around you seem to be going wrong. The giants of history are those men and women who were able to transcend the moment when failure seemed assured and the path to victory was completely hidden from view. Have you ever wondered how Abraham Lincoln kept going when half the Union had seceded and families were raising arms against their own? It must have seemed an impossible task for him to hold the nation together and remain true to what he believed was right. Or what about George Washington? Imagine how he must have felt in the winter of 1776. His ragtag army had just suffered humiliating defeats and had been forced to retreat across the state of New York. The conscriptions of a large portion of his troops were on the verge of expiring and he stood to lose any semblance of a fighting force to go against the British. There were few people anywhere in the world that believed this revolution could ever succeed. I can’t imagine a situation in which failure could appear more assured. How did he muster the courage to cross the Delaware on Christmas Eve to attack forces in Trenton and then Princeton, effectively marking the turning point in the revolution?
Somehow these men, and others throughout history, retained their faith and vision, their courage and commitment. As we seek to emulate them, one way we can keep hope alive is to recognize small victories along the way. This is particularly true for those of us choosing to engage in the battle to preserve the nation we love and the freedoms it represents. When we hear the talking heads in Washington setting an agenda that is contrary to everything we hold dear, and do so with indifference and disdain for the opinion of those they represent, it can seem like a lost cause. Imagine the audacity of Nancy Pelosi to simply laugh off a US citizen who asked her where congress derives the authority to force Americans to enroll in healthcare coverage or be fined by the government. Rather than engage in dialogue to defend her position (although it is, in my view, indefensible) she was dismissive and disrespectful. This would be nothing more than an unfortunate incident if it had not become the modus operandi of politicians in Washington. I’m struck by the arrogance of politicians who label Americans who disagree with their views as ignorant, uneducated, or racist. The institutions of power, from politicians to media outlets to Hollywood are clearly committed to moving America away from our traditional moorings and initiating a socialist inspired new world. It would certainly appear that the house holds the advantage and the American people are about to lose their chips. In some ways it’s reminiscent of General Washington’s predicament so many years ago.
But like Lincoln and Washington, we should not give up the fight. When it seems that we’re faltering and the chances of success seem to be slipping away, we become aware of small victories along the way that give us hope and remind us that the fight can and must go on.
This past week I was driving from New York City to the location of a business meeting I had scheduled in New Jersey. As I merged onto the Jersey Turnpike and crossed over into New Jersey, I was greeted by a large sign welcoming me on behalf of Governor John S. Corzine to the state. As I saw this sign, I couldn’t help but smile as it caused me to think about one of these small victories. It was just the night before that the citizens of New Jersey went to the polls and exercised their democratic right to remove Mr. Corzine from office. Many of you are aware that the outgoing governor of New Jersey is very liberal and has a view of the role of government different than what was envisioned by the founders of our nation. So it certainly can be considered a victory that the voice of the people rejected an individual who does not defend economic freedom and individual liberty. But this victory is even more noteworthy when considering that New Jersey has traditionally been one of the most solid liberal strong holds in our nation. The victorious candidate, Chris Christie is not as staunchly conservative as I, or others, would like, but the fact that an incumbent democrat was unseated by a republican challenger in New Jersey indicates a substantial message being sent by the public . . and this is a victory for the conservative movement.
There was also a victory achieved in the state of Virginia on Tuesday night. Similar to the change achieved in New Jersey, a democratic governor was defeated by a republican challenger. In this case the victor, Bob McDonnell is not only Republican, but considered conservative in his political philosophy (unfortunately republican and conservative are no longer synonymous).
In the 23rd Congressional District of New York, perhaps the biggest victory of the night was achieved . . . and it occurred within an electoral loss. This race was supposed to be a battle between the democratic candidate, Bill Owens, and Dierdre Scozzafava, the candidate backed by the republican party. The problem, however, was that Scozzafava, despite being the republican candidate, does not represent conservatism and cleaves to fairly liberal ideology. With the two parties not presenting any real alternative in their candidates, the usually dormant Conservative Party in New York came to life. Doug Hoffman ran as a conservative candidate and sent a resounding message to both the republican party, and the nation. Although the democrat, Bill Owens, ended up winning the election, he edged Hoffman by only about 5,000 votes. The RINO candidate backed by the party, who actually withdrew from the race 3 days before the election and promptly endorsed the democratic candidate, left her name on the ballot and received only a paltry 5.5% of the vote total.
Democrats across the nation are pointing to this race as an indicator that the public is still choosing liberal candidates. However, the facts that Hoffman was a late entrant to the race, destroyed the prospects of the republican party candidate, represented a third party, and lost only by the narrowest of margins, cannot be ignored. This race has shown that the republican base is insisting on a return to traditional conservatism. Party leaders, take note. . .
These are small victories in the context of a broader fight to preserve our liberty, but victories nonetheless. There are a couple of reasons why these local elections represent much more than victories for just the states and districts wherein they occurred. First, these victories demonstrate that there is a shift occurring in the minds and hearts of the public in some of the most liberal areas of our nation. Second, the citizens of New Jersey, Virginia, and New York have given us an example of what can be done across our nation. Where elected representatives and public servants fail to uphold our constitution and preserve the role of government intended for our nation, they can and must be removed from office. This is the mandate of our founding fathers and the responsibility of those who love liberty. Those elected to public office serve at the pleasure of the citizens they represent. If they lose sight of this most important fact, the citizens they serve must remove them from their positions. These three states have shown the power of the electoral process, and a message has been sent.
Citizens of all states should sit up and take notice. We have the same opportunity to exercise the power of “we the people” and shape the direction of our land. In 2010 many of our nation’s elected representatives will be facing re-election in the congressional mid-terms. They are applying for a job, and we are making the hiring decision. I intend to send a very clear message to those in my state who will be seeking to retain their employment. I invite you all, regardless of the state wherein you reside, to join me.
In the next post on this blog I will be sharing a letter that I am going to send to those seeking reelection in my state. This letter will outline for each of them what I expect them to do and stand for if they would like to receive my vote and my influence in gaining additional votes. I will then send follow-up letters between now and next November reviewing how they’re doing in living up to these expectations. I want it to be very clear to them that they will face fierce opposition in their re-election efforts, unless they stand for the principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility.
Once you see the letter in the upcoming post, I hope you’ll either use that letter as a template, or create one of your own to send to those holding public office in your state. It would be great to have their offices flooded with such letters making it abundantly clear what is expected of them if they want to retain the positions many of them seem to covet so highly.
Small victories can be very large when it comes to inspiring us forward. Thank you to the citizens of New York, New Jersey, and Virginia for supplying us with this gleam of hope in the face of the odds we face in our battle. Let us now carry on and be the purveyors of more small victories that will lead to larger victories, and inevitably overall success.
Richard
Somehow these men, and others throughout history, retained their faith and vision, their courage and commitment. As we seek to emulate them, one way we can keep hope alive is to recognize small victories along the way. This is particularly true for those of us choosing to engage in the battle to preserve the nation we love and the freedoms it represents. When we hear the talking heads in Washington setting an agenda that is contrary to everything we hold dear, and do so with indifference and disdain for the opinion of those they represent, it can seem like a lost cause. Imagine the audacity of Nancy Pelosi to simply laugh off a US citizen who asked her where congress derives the authority to force Americans to enroll in healthcare coverage or be fined by the government. Rather than engage in dialogue to defend her position (although it is, in my view, indefensible) she was dismissive and disrespectful. This would be nothing more than an unfortunate incident if it had not become the modus operandi of politicians in Washington. I’m struck by the arrogance of politicians who label Americans who disagree with their views as ignorant, uneducated, or racist. The institutions of power, from politicians to media outlets to Hollywood are clearly committed to moving America away from our traditional moorings and initiating a socialist inspired new world. It would certainly appear that the house holds the advantage and the American people are about to lose their chips. In some ways it’s reminiscent of General Washington’s predicament so many years ago.
But like Lincoln and Washington, we should not give up the fight. When it seems that we’re faltering and the chances of success seem to be slipping away, we become aware of small victories along the way that give us hope and remind us that the fight can and must go on.
This past week I was driving from New York City to the location of a business meeting I had scheduled in New Jersey. As I merged onto the Jersey Turnpike and crossed over into New Jersey, I was greeted by a large sign welcoming me on behalf of Governor John S. Corzine to the state. As I saw this sign, I couldn’t help but smile as it caused me to think about one of these small victories. It was just the night before that the citizens of New Jersey went to the polls and exercised their democratic right to remove Mr. Corzine from office. Many of you are aware that the outgoing governor of New Jersey is very liberal and has a view of the role of government different than what was envisioned by the founders of our nation. So it certainly can be considered a victory that the voice of the people rejected an individual who does not defend economic freedom and individual liberty. But this victory is even more noteworthy when considering that New Jersey has traditionally been one of the most solid liberal strong holds in our nation. The victorious candidate, Chris Christie is not as staunchly conservative as I, or others, would like, but the fact that an incumbent democrat was unseated by a republican challenger in New Jersey indicates a substantial message being sent by the public . . and this is a victory for the conservative movement.
There was also a victory achieved in the state of Virginia on Tuesday night. Similar to the change achieved in New Jersey, a democratic governor was defeated by a republican challenger. In this case the victor, Bob McDonnell is not only Republican, but considered conservative in his political philosophy (unfortunately republican and conservative are no longer synonymous).
In the 23rd Congressional District of New York, perhaps the biggest victory of the night was achieved . . . and it occurred within an electoral loss. This race was supposed to be a battle between the democratic candidate, Bill Owens, and Dierdre Scozzafava, the candidate backed by the republican party. The problem, however, was that Scozzafava, despite being the republican candidate, does not represent conservatism and cleaves to fairly liberal ideology. With the two parties not presenting any real alternative in their candidates, the usually dormant Conservative Party in New York came to life. Doug Hoffman ran as a conservative candidate and sent a resounding message to both the republican party, and the nation. Although the democrat, Bill Owens, ended up winning the election, he edged Hoffman by only about 5,000 votes. The RINO candidate backed by the party, who actually withdrew from the race 3 days before the election and promptly endorsed the democratic candidate, left her name on the ballot and received only a paltry 5.5% of the vote total.
Democrats across the nation are pointing to this race as an indicator that the public is still choosing liberal candidates. However, the facts that Hoffman was a late entrant to the race, destroyed the prospects of the republican party candidate, represented a third party, and lost only by the narrowest of margins, cannot be ignored. This race has shown that the republican base is insisting on a return to traditional conservatism. Party leaders, take note. . .
These are small victories in the context of a broader fight to preserve our liberty, but victories nonetheless. There are a couple of reasons why these local elections represent much more than victories for just the states and districts wherein they occurred. First, these victories demonstrate that there is a shift occurring in the minds and hearts of the public in some of the most liberal areas of our nation. Second, the citizens of New Jersey, Virginia, and New York have given us an example of what can be done across our nation. Where elected representatives and public servants fail to uphold our constitution and preserve the role of government intended for our nation, they can and must be removed from office. This is the mandate of our founding fathers and the responsibility of those who love liberty. Those elected to public office serve at the pleasure of the citizens they represent. If they lose sight of this most important fact, the citizens they serve must remove them from their positions. These three states have shown the power of the electoral process, and a message has been sent.
Citizens of all states should sit up and take notice. We have the same opportunity to exercise the power of “we the people” and shape the direction of our land. In 2010 many of our nation’s elected representatives will be facing re-election in the congressional mid-terms. They are applying for a job, and we are making the hiring decision. I intend to send a very clear message to those in my state who will be seeking to retain their employment. I invite you all, regardless of the state wherein you reside, to join me.
In the next post on this blog I will be sharing a letter that I am going to send to those seeking reelection in my state. This letter will outline for each of them what I expect them to do and stand for if they would like to receive my vote and my influence in gaining additional votes. I will then send follow-up letters between now and next November reviewing how they’re doing in living up to these expectations. I want it to be very clear to them that they will face fierce opposition in their re-election efforts, unless they stand for the principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility.
Once you see the letter in the upcoming post, I hope you’ll either use that letter as a template, or create one of your own to send to those holding public office in your state. It would be great to have their offices flooded with such letters making it abundantly clear what is expected of them if they want to retain the positions many of them seem to covet so highly.
Small victories can be very large when it comes to inspiring us forward. Thank you to the citizens of New York, New Jersey, and Virginia for supplying us with this gleam of hope in the face of the odds we face in our battle. Let us now carry on and be the purveyors of more small victories that will lead to larger victories, and inevitably overall success.
Richard
Monday, November 2, 2009
Halloween Frightmares
Ahhh, the autumn season. This is the time of year many look forward to. The air is getting crisp, the leaves are changing to beautiful shades of red, orange and yellow, the harvest is coming in, and Saturdays are filled with college football games. Its also the time of year the days get shorter and we start to spend more time in the dark. No wonder that its also the time of year for all things goulish and macabre. I must admit that although I'm not a big fan of horror movies, I can't resist settling in on a dark October night to watch a good ghost story. It just seems to get me in the mood for Halloween. One reason I'm not an afficionado of the scary of movie is that they just don't seem to scare me much anymore. I guess I've become too pragmatic in my old age and what seemed creepy and suspenseful when I was younger, just doesn't faze me. I don't get the adrenaline rush and sit up on the edge of my seat like I used to.
But I have to admit that this Halloween season I found myself scared out of my wits. No, its not because we're once again haunted by the specter of the BCS system, although that does send a chill down my spine. I'm scared because of the following quote I read from a series of essays written in the late 19th century and compiled by famous playwright and avid socialist George Bernard Shaw. The essays are titled the Fabian Essays on Socialism, and were an authoritative source on how to acheive socialism through a slow and drawn out process of gradual change.
Before sharing the quote that chilled me to the bone, let me give some very quick background on Fabian Socialism. The Fabians are a group of English socialists who believed that rather than acheiving socialist rule through revolution, such as the approach advocated by some and adopted by Lenin in the Russian revolution of 1917, it could be acheived by slow, methodical change over a long period of time. The society was named for the Roman General Fabius who won battles through long, drawn-out engagements of attrition rather than through heavy conflict. Ultimately, the objective of the Fabian Socialists is identical to that of other socialist philosophies, including communism, but simply advocates a different set of tactics for acheiving that objective.
Anyway, getting back to our tale of fright, as I was doing some background reading I came across the following statement about how the fabian approach can be used to undermine a capitalist system and achieve socialstic ends.
"The private capitalist, however, will still be in business, producing and distributing on his own account in competition with the communal organization, which at present will have occupied only part of the industrial field. But. . . these private enterprises will be carried on under circumstances of ever-increasing difficulty. . . After a while the private producers will disappear, not because there will be any law against individualist production, but because they will not pay."
What, you ask, is so frightening about this statement? Well, let me explain by translating this statement using language a bit more familiar to our current national dialogue. Try this on for size.
"The private health insurance provider, however, will still be in business issuing insurance packages in competition with the public option, which at present will have occupied only part of the industry. But. . . . these private health insurance providers will operate under circumstances of ever-increasing difficulty. . . After a while the private health insurance providers will disappear, not because there will be any law against private insurance, but because they will not be able to make money."
We're all painfully aware of the ongoing debate around the future of healthcare in our country. Almost everyone has an opinion either for or against the proposals currently circulating in Washington. Whatever people may feel about the current state of healthcare or the need for reform, it is important to understand that the central aspect of this debate has very little to do with healthcare or insuring those in our country who don't currently have coverage. The core of the current healthcare debate is the expansion of governmental control.
Over the last couple of weeks liberal Senators have insisted that they will not support a healthcare bill that does not include a public option. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has replaced the public option that had temporarily been removed from the legislation. The rationale our elected representatives have provided for including a public option is that it is necessary to introduce competition into the marketplace. This is an explanation that borders on complete absurdity when considering how a market actually works in a free enterprise system. Rather than fostering competition, the presence of a government entity can only eliminate private options. How can an organization that must create shareholder value and earn profit compete with an entity that can run at perennial losses and be continually subsidized by tax payer proceeds? It is clear that the insistence of a public option in the healthcare industry is not intended to spur competition, it is intended to acheive a single payer system in which all healthcare will be controlled by the government.
It is enlightening, infuriating, and frightening to see that the tactic being used by those in power is not new. It is directly out of the playbook developed by the fabians over a century ago.
Take a few minutes to watch the following video clip. You'll see even more clearly that the intent is not to improve our healthcare situation, but rather to gain governmental control over a vast portion of our economy. If this happens, the reach of government into our lives and the suspension of individual liberty will be immense.
As we consider those elements threatening our liberty today, we must see the current battle for what it is. One of the underhanded tactics of the ages is to keep people from seeing the true nature of the battle. In our nation today, there is a fundamental struggle occurring between the forces of freedom and the forces of tyranny. It is preserving the America founded by inspired men, characterized by free markets and individual liberty, or it is transitioning to a new America characterized by socialism and pervasive government control. .Those wishing to change America, however, are taking great care to hide their intentions. We must take note that what is happening today, as exemplified by the current healthcare debate, is nothing more than a method of converting a capatilistic nation to socialism.
I've outgrown being scared by Hollywood's tales of fright, because as much as I try to suspend disbelief, I know its all make-believe. It just takes the edge off and keeps my adrenaline levels and heart rate in check. But this horror story of liberty being lost has me shaking in my boots. But this can still be a story with a happy ending if we stand up now in defense of our liberty.
Thanks,
Richard
References:
- Fabian Essays on Socialism, Doubleday & Co., New York p. 195. Also found online at http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=298
- The Fabian Society London School of Economics and Political Science http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/LSEHistory/fabian.htm
But I have to admit that this Halloween season I found myself scared out of my wits. No, its not because we're once again haunted by the specter of the BCS system, although that does send a chill down my spine. I'm scared because of the following quote I read from a series of essays written in the late 19th century and compiled by famous playwright and avid socialist George Bernard Shaw. The essays are titled the Fabian Essays on Socialism, and were an authoritative source on how to acheive socialism through a slow and drawn out process of gradual change.
Before sharing the quote that chilled me to the bone, let me give some very quick background on Fabian Socialism. The Fabians are a group of English socialists who believed that rather than acheiving socialist rule through revolution, such as the approach advocated by some and adopted by Lenin in the Russian revolution of 1917, it could be acheived by slow, methodical change over a long period of time. The society was named for the Roman General Fabius who won battles through long, drawn-out engagements of attrition rather than through heavy conflict. Ultimately, the objective of the Fabian Socialists is identical to that of other socialist philosophies, including communism, but simply advocates a different set of tactics for acheiving that objective.
Anyway, getting back to our tale of fright, as I was doing some background reading I came across the following statement about how the fabian approach can be used to undermine a capitalist system and achieve socialstic ends.
"The private capitalist, however, will still be in business, producing and distributing on his own account in competition with the communal organization, which at present will have occupied only part of the industrial field. But. . . these private enterprises will be carried on under circumstances of ever-increasing difficulty. . . After a while the private producers will disappear, not because there will be any law against individualist production, but because they will not pay."
What, you ask, is so frightening about this statement? Well, let me explain by translating this statement using language a bit more familiar to our current national dialogue. Try this on for size.
"The private health insurance provider, however, will still be in business issuing insurance packages in competition with the public option, which at present will have occupied only part of the industry. But. . . . these private health insurance providers will operate under circumstances of ever-increasing difficulty. . . After a while the private health insurance providers will disappear, not because there will be any law against private insurance, but because they will not be able to make money."
We're all painfully aware of the ongoing debate around the future of healthcare in our country. Almost everyone has an opinion either for or against the proposals currently circulating in Washington. Whatever people may feel about the current state of healthcare or the need for reform, it is important to understand that the central aspect of this debate has very little to do with healthcare or insuring those in our country who don't currently have coverage. The core of the current healthcare debate is the expansion of governmental control.
Over the last couple of weeks liberal Senators have insisted that they will not support a healthcare bill that does not include a public option. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has replaced the public option that had temporarily been removed from the legislation. The rationale our elected representatives have provided for including a public option is that it is necessary to introduce competition into the marketplace. This is an explanation that borders on complete absurdity when considering how a market actually works in a free enterprise system. Rather than fostering competition, the presence of a government entity can only eliminate private options. How can an organization that must create shareholder value and earn profit compete with an entity that can run at perennial losses and be continually subsidized by tax payer proceeds? It is clear that the insistence of a public option in the healthcare industry is not intended to spur competition, it is intended to acheive a single payer system in which all healthcare will be controlled by the government.
It is enlightening, infuriating, and frightening to see that the tactic being used by those in power is not new. It is directly out of the playbook developed by the fabians over a century ago.
Take a few minutes to watch the following video clip. You'll see even more clearly that the intent is not to improve our healthcare situation, but rather to gain governmental control over a vast portion of our economy. If this happens, the reach of government into our lives and the suspension of individual liberty will be immense.
As we consider those elements threatening our liberty today, we must see the current battle for what it is. One of the underhanded tactics of the ages is to keep people from seeing the true nature of the battle. In our nation today, there is a fundamental struggle occurring between the forces of freedom and the forces of tyranny. It is preserving the America founded by inspired men, characterized by free markets and individual liberty, or it is transitioning to a new America characterized by socialism and pervasive government control. .Those wishing to change America, however, are taking great care to hide their intentions. We must take note that what is happening today, as exemplified by the current healthcare debate, is nothing more than a method of converting a capatilistic nation to socialism.
I've outgrown being scared by Hollywood's tales of fright, because as much as I try to suspend disbelief, I know its all make-believe. It just takes the edge off and keeps my adrenaline levels and heart rate in check. But this horror story of liberty being lost has me shaking in my boots. But this can still be a story with a happy ending if we stand up now in defense of our liberty.
Thanks,
Richard
References:
- Fabian Essays on Socialism, Doubleday & Co., New York p. 195. Also found online at http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=298
- The Fabian Society London School of Economics and Political Science http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/LSEHistory/fabian.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
