Senator Warner/Webb:
I have read with great alarm and disgust that this insane and reckless "Cap-and-Trade" Bill has passed the House.
I cannot for the life of me understand how members of Congress can, in good conscience, vote for bills with hundreds and hundreds of pages, with thousands and thousands of items, each one of which has the potential to radically damage our rights, our economy and the very functioning of this country.
If there is any hope for maintaining what little sanity in this country, and what little respect we citizens have left for our national legislators, and what little remains of the Constitutionality of this great country, I insist that you vote against this bill, and do everything within your power to convince your fellow Senators that this bill is utter folly and is tantamount to economic suicide.
I have no doubts that you are aware of the frustration, anger and disgust that is unprecedented towards the reckless antics of the last few Congresses, and especially this current one, and a President who acts more like some kind of tinpot banana-republic dictator than the leader of the Free World. I feel as if you folks, as a whole, are treating this country as nothing more than a big piñata, battering it, and us, relentlessly to see what goodies you can expose as it ruptures. The people have spoken against the bailouts and yet it did no good. The people have spoken out about the so-called stimulus and yet it did no good. The people have spoken out against earmarks and yet it did no good. Frankly, I wonder if there is anything we can do any more to stop the literal rapine of generations' worth of wealth in the support of mindless rhetoric, shameless demagoguery and outright lies coming out of our government these days.
It seems to me that Congress, as well as this President, have abandoned all pretense of abiding by the Constitution's specific enumeration of limited powers to the federal government. I feel utterly betrayed at the brazenness of these bills, the gall of passing something that members haven't even read, that members literally could not read in the time given. If anyone else in the world were to perform his job in this way, he would be fired for negligence, but for a Congressman or Senator, this is Standard Operating Procedure. To me it is a mockery of the duties and responsibilities of such important jobs, and shows willful abandonment of the oath to protect and defend our Constitution.
Our President and this Congress are systematically dismantling everything that made this country great, that made this country unique in the history of the world, that has allowed this country to become the most free, most productive and richest country in the history of Mankind. We are witnessing the end of our Republic as it has existed for 230 years, but which in the past decades has become further and further distanced from every idea upon which it was founded.
If our Founding Fathers knew what this country had become they would be ashamed and disgusted, too. They would especially be ashamed at the degeneration and devolution of their successors to the high offices of the Republic who have let politics and greed become the defining ideals of the United States. They would be shamed at the flagrant violation of each and every item in the Bill of Rights, with the exception of the Third Amendment, with the ease at which Congress rationalizes every power grab, every clear disregard for the intent of the Constitution, every show of contempt for the sacred ideals of limited government, of the people, by the people and for the people, confident in the knowledge that nothing will stand in their way.
Please vote against this legislation and do everything you can to convince your fellow Senators to reject this Bill. It will do nothing to help the environment, but do practically everything possible to ruin our economy, and thus, this country.
Rick Gutleber
Leesburg, VA
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Hypocrisy in the Age of "Sacrifice"
Of all all these rich liberals who support Obama and his ilk, why is it none of them ever offers additional money to the government, and I would suspect, tend to engage in every tactic possible to avoid, at least legally, paying taxes?
Many of these liberals support charitable causes and are generous with their money, often doing many admirable things to help others. However, they are never more generous to the government they vocally adore, or the President whom they treat, sometimes literally, as a deity, than they need to be. We can be sure of this because no self-respecting liberal in the public eye would contribute in such a way without using it as an example, or even as a means of self-aggrandizement, especially if the person is a politician.
And yet, in a time when the President and Congress are growing our government at a rate faster than any time except perhaps World War II, why are none of the supporters of these overreaching statists setting a good example and demonstrating their obvious faith in the government by making contributions to it? Why don't they put their money where there mouths are? If it's good enough for Joe the Plumber, why isn't it good enough for Barbra Streisand? Can't you imagine the fanfare of some great would-be philoanthropist personally handing a giant check for, say, one million dollars to a Senator or Congressman, or (gasp!) even the President himself, to be deposited into the general treasury? What a photo op that would be!
Is it because, they, like every good American, know that it's largely a waste? Is it possible that even in their minds, sodden as they are with visions of the Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent State, they acknowledge the universal truth that the Federal government is largely incompetent, wasteful and even corrupt?
I respect the idea of people of any political mien sharing their money with any cause they deem appropriate, because that is their right, even duty. Many liberals support causes such as the environment, education, and eliminating poverty, causes that transcend politics and support of which does much good. But none of them, so far as I've ever heard, are willing to turn over their largesse to the coffers of government. Why do these folks get to pick how their money is spent, but want everyone else, especially the rich, to have no say? Sure, they might contribute to building a playground, or a clinic, or a nature preserve, all admirable causes, but isn't the government also an admirable cause? And if not, why not?
Of course, charity is not always prevalent among these kinds of people. Why are people like the Obamas and the Bidens, who, though rich, contributing almost nothing to charity, while constantly lecturing us, even preaching to us, about how we must sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice, for the good of others?
Hasn't anyone in Washington ever learned one of the most basic lessons of life that you sway more people by actions than words? I mean even if the likes of President George W. Bush, who contributes far more than any recent Democrat president, are giving charity solely for appearance's sake, they're still doing it. Appearance is everything in politics, we are led to believe, so wouldn't even the appearance of caring for others be worth enough to contribute generously, regardless of the actual effect or intent?
Are these politicians really that dense? Do they really not care? Are they truly the hypocrites they appear to be? Is there any other conceivable explanation?
Many of these liberals support charitable causes and are generous with their money, often doing many admirable things to help others. However, they are never more generous to the government they vocally adore, or the President whom they treat, sometimes literally, as a deity, than they need to be. We can be sure of this because no self-respecting liberal in the public eye would contribute in such a way without using it as an example, or even as a means of self-aggrandizement, especially if the person is a politician.
And yet, in a time when the President and Congress are growing our government at a rate faster than any time except perhaps World War II, why are none of the supporters of these overreaching statists setting a good example and demonstrating their obvious faith in the government by making contributions to it? Why don't they put their money where there mouths are? If it's good enough for Joe the Plumber, why isn't it good enough for Barbra Streisand? Can't you imagine the fanfare of some great would-be philoanthropist personally handing a giant check for, say, one million dollars to a Senator or Congressman, or (gasp!) even the President himself, to be deposited into the general treasury? What a photo op that would be!
Is it because, they, like every good American, know that it's largely a waste? Is it possible that even in their minds, sodden as they are with visions of the Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent State, they acknowledge the universal truth that the Federal government is largely incompetent, wasteful and even corrupt?
I respect the idea of people of any political mien sharing their money with any cause they deem appropriate, because that is their right, even duty. Many liberals support causes such as the environment, education, and eliminating poverty, causes that transcend politics and support of which does much good. But none of them, so far as I've ever heard, are willing to turn over their largesse to the coffers of government. Why do these folks get to pick how their money is spent, but want everyone else, especially the rich, to have no say? Sure, they might contribute to building a playground, or a clinic, or a nature preserve, all admirable causes, but isn't the government also an admirable cause? And if not, why not?
Of course, charity is not always prevalent among these kinds of people. Why are people like the Obamas and the Bidens, who, though rich, contributing almost nothing to charity, while constantly lecturing us, even preaching to us, about how we must sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice, for the good of others?
Hasn't anyone in Washington ever learned one of the most basic lessons of life that you sway more people by actions than words? I mean even if the likes of President George W. Bush, who contributes far more than any recent Democrat president, are giving charity solely for appearance's sake, they're still doing it. Appearance is everything in politics, we are led to believe, so wouldn't even the appearance of caring for others be worth enough to contribute generously, regardless of the actual effect or intent?
Are these politicians really that dense? Do they really not care? Are they truly the hypocrites they appear to be? Is there any other conceivable explanation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
