I'm tired of people saying the Democrats are altruistic, generous and loving while the Republicans are tight fisted, racist and self-absorbed. Well, if people would talk about both parties, they'd probably be right about the self-absorbed part. Nonetheless, research has clearly shown that Republicans are actually significantly more generous in charitable giving than are Democrats. How can this be you ask? Well, most Democrats believe that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people, not their personal responsibility, whereas Republicans believe it is their personal responsibility and not the job of the government. Therefore, they give more, much more in fact ... but I digress. The Republican party opens itself up for criticism on a regular basis as being for big business and against the little guy and being racist. While I'm sure this is true of individual Republicans, it is not true party wide, nor would it be true party wide for Democrats, but I'm sure there are some examples of it in that party too. The fact is that Republicans stand for something, or at least they claim to. Supposedly (and they rejected this during the Bush administration which is why I think they lost power), they believe that freedom is a virtue to be fought for while equality is a slippery slope to socialism and communism and they believe that small government is better than a large bloated government that means to control you. If this were really what Republicans believed, I'd be one, but everybody knows this isn't how they acted in the last 8 years. Liberty is a higher moral value than equality because in order to achieve "true" equality, we'd have to limit people's liberty. Small government is better as well because the larger a government becomes, the more it seeks to control (this is from the wisdom of our founding fathers). The more control the government seeks, the less freedom we will have as individuals. So, the government should be kept in check rather than allowing it to run amok and gain control over nearly every aspect of our lives. As for Democrats, they don't believe in anything. They will spout whatever they have to in order to sound good for the electorate, but if you push them on the basis of their beliefs you'll get Progressivism or Keynesian economics or an argument for equality for all (already pointed out the flaw in this one). These aren't solid foundational beliefs, they are political talking points. However, the history of Progressivism relies heavily on a single leader controlling the movement, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt in the U.S. and moving on to Woodrow Wilson and then on to FDR. This is actually a bad way to do business in a free society because if you get the wrong person in power, well... Nonetheless, Progressivist history is also full of eugenic policies. Maybe you are a believer in social engineering. I'm not, but if you are, then perhaps you should take a hard close look at what social engineering really is, say, read about Nazi Germany. Nonetheless, our latest economic stimulus package contained a lot of money for birth control measures. Fortunately, it was removed but mostly because Nancy Pelosi stuck her foot in her mouth more than because of any perceived wrongness on the part of the program itself. At any rate, this is what she said about it to George Stephanopolous:
"The family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now, and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
What?! This argument doesn't make sense, does it? Well, actually it does if you look at it from a slightly different direction. How in the world could providing money to the states to ensure contraception possibly save the states money? There's only one way I can think of and that is by reducing the number of children that might need welfare in the next several years. How do you reduce them? You provide birth control to the target population. What is the target population? African Americans. So, Nancy Pelosi wants to save the states money by preventing the births of black children in America and she defended this idea as a good one? You heard very little backlash about this in the media but they should have been up in arms at the racist undertones hidden in this statement. In fact, if a conservative had said it (they wouldn't because it violates their supposed principles) then the press would have had a field day calling that person a racist and forcing them to apologize. Where's Nancy's apology or the calls for her to step down as Speaker? They aren't there and they won't be there, but I'm telling you that those who claim to be Progressive, if they really believe in the movement will eventually show themselves to believe in "social engineering" better known as eugenics. This is what is hiding behind the veil that isn't being lifted by the press in this case. At least, that's the way I see it. Got another logical explanation for Nancy's crazy talk? I'd like to hear it.
No comments:
Post a Comment