Since last week when this issue about 47% of us not paying income taxes and the 1998 video of Obama talking about building "a majority coalition" of welfare recipients came up, it got me to thinking about the arc of America's history. You know, we started at that point where we had "taxation without representation." And the founders found that so intolerable, they went to war against an empire over it. And now that arc is arriving at a place, not the opposite of "taxation without representation."
But it's the other side of the same coin. We have representation without taxation. And to me the two are equally tyrannical and oppressive. But instead of being outraged about it, Americans just look at now and shrug and say, "Yeah, that's fairness." And I have to wonder: How did we get here, Rush? How did the character of America as a nation fall this far where self-reliance isn't considered a virtue anymore?And after some reminders from Rush about the state of affairs and producers versus takers in America and liberal media indoctrinating people etc, the caller added this:
The point I wanted to make is the character of America. I have to believe the Founders wanted us, as citizens, to be self-reliant, and they codified it in the last four words of the Tenth Amendment. It says if the federal government doesn't do it either the states do it or the people do it. That says to me that there must be some things they expected us to do for ourselves. Not 'cause they wanted us to be selfish, 'cause they wanted the citizenry to be self-reliant. 'Cause how could we be an independent nation comprised of dependent people? And they had to have known that.This is a very good point. Dependency is only another form of slavery. Freedom would have us be able to achieve our dreams, but the sad state of the economy dictates the opposite. Which economy is caused by bloated government, as I detailed for you here a few days ago. Before you blindly disagree, take a minute to read over my points and sources. I guarantee you'll learn something. And no, I am not saying that everyone on government aid wants to stay on it for the rest of their lives, because the American Dream dies hard. Which is where Mitt Romney comes in to save the day!
By the way: you may have already seen Harry Reid's attacks on Romney that he "sullies the religion" they share, but they are not true. No, Mormonism is not damaged by Romney. He's been accused by the media of being uncompassionate for a Mormon because of the 47% remark, which has been taken out of context by the liberal media. Mother Jones admitted that they left out a couple minutes after the 47% part, but they haven't released the whole thing even though Romney has asked them to do so. Which is still not reported in the media, meaning Reid can get away with this anti-Romney statement in the press even though it's really hypocritical if you think about it because the fundamental belief in the LDS Church is to follow Jesus Christ and Harry Reid's divisive remarks show him to be a politician, not a practicing Mormon, all the while Romney has talked about making life better for all Americans with a better economy.
Where liberals misunderstand conservatives is in the role of government to a) get out of the way of the economy so we can all prosper and b) that entitlements are not compassion. True charity is given by individuals freedly, not government taking money by force. Again, please see previous posts for details and data sources. Thanks for listening.