Here is a bit of it:
Among his promises was one to cut taxes for the American middle class.
Barak Obama is buying the presidency. What's the cost? $500 per American. Given to non-tax payers. Paid for by hard working men and women. How many people would honestly say no to a man who shouted "Vote for me, and I'll give you $500." $500 that wasn't earned. At least, not by the intended recipients.
"Sharing the wealth" is nothing more than a euphemism for "wealth redistribution." What justification for this is there? Is it charity? Charity is voluntary. It is not a tax that the government can enforce. It certainly isn't voluntary when you target a particular group, especially when many CEOs think Mr.Obama will bankrupt the country.
Is this a government policy? Definitely. Is it welfare? Not officially, but for all intents and purposes, it is. It is a would be policy by a would be government, to take money that wasn't earned, from those who worked long and hard, and give it to someone who does nothing, for no reason. This ideal of paying everyone whether they work or not is another form of wealth distribution we all know, as socialism. Of course, communism being a more common form of socialism that we should recognise it as. This is not a scare tactic used by Obama's opponents. This is history tested fact.
Contrary to the warm fuzzy feelings we (or someone you know) may
have about socialism, here in our free countries, it is not an answer to poverty
and class division. Socialism is the cause of many ills in countries around the
world, as it tramples on our rights and freedoms. It diminishes our ability to
acquire wealth, property and ultimately, security.
Read it and tell me what you think. Please, don't send me a message screaming racism or how you are a closet woman-hater because I can promise you this: I will post your nasty screed everywhere I can until I get an intelligent answer from you. I welcome discussion. I really do, even if I don't agree with you.
Just read it.
4 comments:
We can learn from that here in Canada. Nice, informative piece.
The rude commenters might have to ask someone what 'please' means, as you are using manners with them while they do not do the same in return.
The problem we have in the 'free' world is big government and big business. Too few people are making our choices for us. It's a corporate and judicial coup de'ta.
Tee!
I've never understood why someone would call those in the House of Commons a bunch of clowns and then trust them to run our lives. Hardly sensible, in my opinion.
Your entire blog is a complete joke. Why do you even bother?
When people comment on your blog, you post only those comments that either suit your agenda or that you feel you can easily discredit.
You never post any of the comments of substance that show rational points of view which disagree with your extreme left-wing rants.
You're constantly telling commentors to "do their research" and "check the facts", and yet when they do and post a rational argument, you choose not to post these comments.
It's ridiculous that only people who agree with you can comment on your blog.
I wonder what your agreeeable readers would think of your blog if they knew the truth...that you censor rational comments that contain no profanity, only facts.
Like I said, your blog is a joke.
Be honest, be real, stop censoring comments that should be posted.
Why don't you shock me and post this comment in its entirety?
Post a Comment