Sarah Palin will never be accepted by liberal women and NOW. She is the mother of 5 and has not received the obligatory abortion. Her commitment to motherhood is a scathing indictment of the left's cavalier contempt for life.
---William Fortner 2008---
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Two Inept Politicians
It is criminal that America is held hostage by two arrogant, inept politicians. The haughty disdain for the will of the people displayed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid since taking office makes it crystal clear their confirmation as Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader was a horrible mistake and a crushing disaster. The filling of those positions is proving far too important to be left to congress.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Child In Utero
Laci Laws make it a double murder if a pregnant woman is killed and her child in utero dies. Abortion is not considered murder if the woman has her child in utero killed. Is it still a double murder if the woman was on her way to get an abortion when she was killed and the child in utero died?
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Targeted Tax
"Targeted tax cut recipients" are those taxpayers who can successfully jump through their own anus with a 12' 2x4 strapped to their feet."
--- William Fortner 2000 ---
--- William Fortner 2000 ---
Talking Points
The only things I can find so far that do not incite Islamic rage is beheading infidels, abusing women and Democrat talking points.
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
Taken Alive
The news today reported that bin Laden boasted that he WOULD NOT be taken alive. For once he may be right. I don't think he was taken very far alive at all.
--- William Fortner 2001 ---
--- William Fortner 2001 ---
No Honor
There is no honor or decency among the left. To them, freedom of speech means the absolute right to degrade, vilify, besmirch and destroy anyone they chose using any lie, derogatory intimation or fairytale that comes to mind. Truth is not in them because truth cannot abide a putrefying host.
It is so sad that the left can't compete honestly and deal in facts and not fantasy. Sarah Palin is so far above them morally, spiritually and intelligently they have to try to bring her down to their size. I don't think she can be reduced to something as small and sullen as the average Kos kid, as nebulous as a breath of Huffpo hot air or a Mooooooooove On bovine herd follower. The lack of even the most basic decency, sense of civility, courtesy or manners among liberal democrats is a national embarrassment. They should be ashamed, but they are so focused on their pathological hatred they cannot sense the scope and blackness of the disgrace and dishonor that encompasses them like a grave. They exist on hate, lies and innuendo. I take comfort that ethical people with moral compasses are immune to their malicious and hateful rantings and know the filth they spew is from the feculent excrement on which they feed.
I have no use for soulless, rotting heaps of sullage that are incapable of contributing to the betterment of society. They are beyond contempt by all decent people. When I hear a leftist prattling some exaggerated and untrue twaddle, I feel a need to scrape it off my shoes and take a bath. Their hateful rantings make fetid even the electrons used to transmit their filth.
America would be a more genteel and gracious place if these repugnant dung heaps of enmity were completely ignored, shunned by decent society and left to decompose from their own internal corruption. But I will pray for them. I am told that praying for those who despitefully use you heaps coals of fire upon their heads, I will pray hard and perhaps countless cases of spontaneous combustion will begin to purify what they have sullied.
---Bill Fortner 2008---
It is so sad that the left can't compete honestly and deal in facts and not fantasy. Sarah Palin is so far above them morally, spiritually and intelligently they have to try to bring her down to their size. I don't think she can be reduced to something as small and sullen as the average Kos kid, as nebulous as a breath of Huffpo hot air or a Mooooooooove On bovine herd follower. The lack of even the most basic decency, sense of civility, courtesy or manners among liberal democrats is a national embarrassment. They should be ashamed, but they are so focused on their pathological hatred they cannot sense the scope and blackness of the disgrace and dishonor that encompasses them like a grave. They exist on hate, lies and innuendo. I take comfort that ethical people with moral compasses are immune to their malicious and hateful rantings and know the filth they spew is from the feculent excrement on which they feed.
I have no use for soulless, rotting heaps of sullage that are incapable of contributing to the betterment of society. They are beyond contempt by all decent people. When I hear a leftist prattling some exaggerated and untrue twaddle, I feel a need to scrape it off my shoes and take a bath. Their hateful rantings make fetid even the electrons used to transmit their filth.
America would be a more genteel and gracious place if these repugnant dung heaps of enmity were completely ignored, shunned by decent society and left to decompose from their own internal corruption. But I will pray for them. I am told that praying for those who despitefully use you heaps coals of fire upon their heads, I will pray hard and perhaps countless cases of spontaneous combustion will begin to purify what they have sullied.
---Bill Fortner 2008---
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Hope, Change and Unity
With Palin added to the mix, it looks like it looks like the Democrats are reverting to business as usual with the tried and true Lie, Cheat and Steal. So much for Hope, Change and Unity.
---Bill Fortner 2008---
---Bill Fortner 2008---
Suicide Is Illegal
By making suicide illegal, the government affirms that you do not have the right to take your own life. It then stands to reason that you have the duty to protect your life. Since the government did not give you life, it must have been endowed by the Creator mentioned in the Constitution, therefore, self defense is a God given right.
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
Sucking The Public Teat
Americans fought the mightiest nation in the world over taxation without representation. Now it is time to curtail representation without taxation. Those who have not served in the Armed Forces, do not own real property or pay income taxes should have no say in governing this country. Their vested interest is sucking the public teat while others feed the sow.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Storm Survivability
When it comes to storm survivability, "mobile homes" are essentially organized debris waiting for wind distribution. In tornadoes, they instantly become wingless aircraft then UFOs (Unassembled Flying Objects) a split second later.
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
Stay out Of Jail
The Democrat strategy to stay out of jail is to rain frivolous subpoenas on the Administration hoping to keep it inundated. Gonzales should reply with a firestorm of grand jury indictments. Feinstein, Reid and Pelosi are perfect candidates having provided public proof of guilt.
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
Spies
Isn't it refreshing to see foreign spies expelled from the country instead of invited to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom?
--- William Fortner 2002---
--- William Fortner 2002---
Beware Of Labels
There are many political labels being bandied about in the media these days and most, if not all, of these labels are grossly misused. This inaccuracy is not accidental. It is purposely done to fool and mislead the American public.
To fully understand and appreciate the depth and scope of this fraudulent misrepresentation you must get your dictionary. Go ahead, get it! I'll wait! Your ignorance, laziness, and laxness is what has contributed to the success of this dishonest scam.
Got it? Good! Now look up the following words: conservatism, capitalism, liberalism, environmentalism, socialism and communism. Yes, of course you need to actually read the definitions!
By definition, a conservative is unlikely to make any rapid and sweeping changes in government. This is diametrically opposed to what is broadcast daily by the mainstream media and espoused by many public figures. Those two sources loudly and incessantly wail that rapid, sweeping, and catastrophic changes to government programs are imminent with a conservative administration, but neither history nor the record bears this out. No proof is offered by these people, only innuendo. Who then is lying and why?
A capitalist is a businessman or woman, period. Contrary to political rhetoric and media hype, no connotations of environmental rape, animal cruelty or industrialized slavery is attached by definition to that title. These less desirable attributes that do occur on occasion are dishonestly attributed to ALL capitalists by the media and some self serving public figures in an effort to support an agenda that demands more governmental control of everything. Who is being dishonest here?
As defined by Merriam-Webster, a liberal exactly describes those categorized by the media and some public figures as the "Religious Right." Who, then, are the self professed liberals and liberal institutions and those the media characterize as liberals? Those people and institutions the media describe as liberal are decidedly not liberals at all. This goes for the "liberal" media as well. Neither the "liberal" media nor "liberal" public figures profess or display any tenets of liberalism. Quite the contrary. They are at best socialists and, at worst, communists. The "liberal" label fits the vast majority of the American public. Is that why the term is misused? Is it to misrepresent the truth and hide a more sinister agenda.
An environmentalist is one who wants to protect or improve the environment. Nowhere does the definition preclude capitalists, liberals or anyother political persuasion from supporting those views nor does it place environmental issues paramount to the needs of humans or indicate that humans are of less intrinsic value than the flora and fauna. Who, or what, then are the people that espouse that principal? They can't be labeled environmentalists as the media and others do. Perhaps new terms recently emerging in the "electronic fringe media" are more descriptive. Those terms are "eco-extremists" and"eco-terrorists."
A socialist is one that demands massive governmental intervention in business and private matters to the point that the government either owns or controls the entire productive capacity of a nation and all property. A socialist recognizes that those who produce more for the state deserve more from the state, though certainly nowhere near all that they produce, however, that which is given to them by the state still belongs to the state. "State benevolence" is essentially a conditional short term loan that is extended and can be recalled at a moment's notice and does not become private property when given. Is this the people who are improperly identified as liberals? It seems so by definition. Why doesn't the media properly identify those with a socialist agenda as socialists? Is it because the vast majority of the American people rebel at the thought of socialism and correctly identify it as an intermediate step to communism, but have been dumbed down enough through leftist educational policies to gradually accept it under another less offensive, but totally false, term? I think so and the evidence to support this available everyday to anyone willing to think for themselves.
Communism need not be discussed here. It is the antithesis of the American system of self government and has historically been a dismal failure, but you already knew that didn't you? Do not pay too close attention to what the media and public figures say about people and institutions in the limelight. Watch what they really do and find out ALL of the facts before you decide the label. That goes double for those making the assertions.
---William Fortner 2008---
To fully understand and appreciate the depth and scope of this fraudulent misrepresentation you must get your dictionary. Go ahead, get it! I'll wait! Your ignorance, laziness, and laxness is what has contributed to the success of this dishonest scam.
Got it? Good! Now look up the following words: conservatism, capitalism, liberalism, environmentalism, socialism and communism. Yes, of course you need to actually read the definitions!
By definition, a conservative is unlikely to make any rapid and sweeping changes in government. This is diametrically opposed to what is broadcast daily by the mainstream media and espoused by many public figures. Those two sources loudly and incessantly wail that rapid, sweeping, and catastrophic changes to government programs are imminent with a conservative administration, but neither history nor the record bears this out. No proof is offered by these people, only innuendo. Who then is lying and why?
A capitalist is a businessman or woman, period. Contrary to political rhetoric and media hype, no connotations of environmental rape, animal cruelty or industrialized slavery is attached by definition to that title. These less desirable attributes that do occur on occasion are dishonestly attributed to ALL capitalists by the media and some self serving public figures in an effort to support an agenda that demands more governmental control of everything. Who is being dishonest here?
As defined by Merriam-Webster, a liberal exactly describes those categorized by the media and some public figures as the "Religious Right." Who, then, are the self professed liberals and liberal institutions and those the media characterize as liberals? Those people and institutions the media describe as liberal are decidedly not liberals at all. This goes for the "liberal" media as well. Neither the "liberal" media nor "liberal" public figures profess or display any tenets of liberalism. Quite the contrary. They are at best socialists and, at worst, communists. The "liberal" label fits the vast majority of the American public. Is that why the term is misused? Is it to misrepresent the truth and hide a more sinister agenda.
An environmentalist is one who wants to protect or improve the environment. Nowhere does the definition preclude capitalists, liberals or anyother political persuasion from supporting those views nor does it place environmental issues paramount to the needs of humans or indicate that humans are of less intrinsic value than the flora and fauna. Who, or what, then are the people that espouse that principal? They can't be labeled environmentalists as the media and others do. Perhaps new terms recently emerging in the "electronic fringe media" are more descriptive. Those terms are "eco-extremists" and"eco-terrorists."
A socialist is one that demands massive governmental intervention in business and private matters to the point that the government either owns or controls the entire productive capacity of a nation and all property. A socialist recognizes that those who produce more for the state deserve more from the state, though certainly nowhere near all that they produce, however, that which is given to them by the state still belongs to the state. "State benevolence" is essentially a conditional short term loan that is extended and can be recalled at a moment's notice and does not become private property when given. Is this the people who are improperly identified as liberals? It seems so by definition. Why doesn't the media properly identify those with a socialist agenda as socialists? Is it because the vast majority of the American people rebel at the thought of socialism and correctly identify it as an intermediate step to communism, but have been dumbed down enough through leftist educational policies to gradually accept it under another less offensive, but totally false, term? I think so and the evidence to support this available everyday to anyone willing to think for themselves.
Communism need not be discussed here. It is the antithesis of the American system of self government and has historically been a dismal failure, but you already knew that didn't you? Do not pay too close attention to what the media and public figures say about people and institutions in the limelight. Watch what they really do and find out ALL of the facts before you decide the label. That goes double for those making the assertions.
---William Fortner 2008---
Monday, August 25, 2008
The Buck Stops Here
Harry Truman was wrong. The buck doesn't stop at the desk of the President. The buck stops at the kitchen tables and living rooms of his employers.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Raw Courage
Taking off and landing on a carrier is bad enough, but to load up with bombs, rockets and bullets and intentionally fly to a place where everyone wants a piece of your backside...and has the means to get it...takes raw courage.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
South Of The Border
If the Republican administration had any leadership and backbone, half of the House and Senate as well as much of the media would be in jail waiting trial for treason, fraud, malfeasance and various other crimes and Mexicans illegally in this country would be stampeding to get south of the border before they starved.
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
Socialism and Poverty
Socialism does not end poverty. It perpetuates it by robbing an ever growing segment of the population until all are equally poor.
--- William Fortner 2002 ---
--- William Fortner 2002 ---
Social Engineering
Social Engineering: (Noun) The liberal engine of political power acquisition which, at the expense of the active and industrious, provides far less for the lazy and lethargic than they could provide for themselves with minimal effort.
--- William Fortner 2005 ---
--- William Fortner 2005 ---
Slide Into Socialism
For America's slide into socialism, we have no one to blame but ourselves for letting television with questionable moral content do our babysitting for us, schools without local accountability educate our children for us and dishonest"news" anchormen with questionable political agendas do our thinking for us.
--- William Fortner 2004 ---
--- William Fortner 2004 ---
Ltr To The Editor
Many have heard quoted the first two lines of Alexander Tyler's statement. Here is the rest of it.
The Fall Of A Republic
While the thirteen American colonies were still under British control, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote the following:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. Professor Alexander Tyler
And where is America on the progression scale now?
I think it is past time for the good people of this nation to rise up and loudly proclaim that enough is enough and work to set this country back on course if that is possible. There is absolutely no logical reason why America should go the way of past great civilizations if we can restore honor and integrity in ourgovernment and a sense of patriotism in our people. There is no reason why the"Gimmemores" and the "Mefirsts" should prevail in our society.
We must remember that our country has a spirit unprecedented in the affairs of man. Many past civilizations were mighty and victorious in war,conquering and exploiting millions, but I can think of none that have been as magnanimous as America towards those it once counted as enemies. What past great civilization reached out and helped those it had vanquished as America has done for Germany, Japan, and Russia? What other nation has stepped aside so graciously when previously vanquished foes and victims of their foe's conquests petitioned for a return to self government? Of all the real estate captured by American fighting men and paid for with their blood, America has only two very small territories remaining, American Samoa and Guam, and they will be granted independence the moment they decide to go it on their own. Neither seem willing to break the bonds with America at the moment. Though not the only point of uniqueness, this particular one speaks reams about the heart and soul of America. It is only recently that America's power has been cowardly misused for nefarious purpose, but there is no reason for this to continue if we elect honest, ethical and courageous men and women to represent and lead us. If we do not do this, we will rapidly become yet another self inflicted social failure.
The people of America need to teach themselves to discern the difference between politicians and statesmen and the difference is great. A politician is: a person engaged in party politics as a profession; a person primarily interested inpolitical office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons. Astatesman is: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies; one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship. America is cursed with far too many politicians and far too few statesmen in my opinion. While we may have become a nation of blind adherence to political rhetoric due to our laziness and unwillingness to get the facts and think on our own, there is no reason we cannot become a nation of wise, informed citizens choosing those that display the highest standards of honor, integrity,and moral courage to lead us.
Nowhere in any of the many founding documents of our country do I find any idea among the framers of our nation that there would rise up an exalted chaste of professional politicians who exhibit the very worst of the definition and who would, by hook or crook, build and maintain a power base by redistributing the wealth of others. That concept would be absolutely abhorrent to them. They were the ones willing to go to war with England and risk everything over unfair and burdensome taxation issues. I think they had in mind a republic led by statesmen selflessly dedicated to the good of the nation. Perhaps the best thing Americacan do to save itself is to break the power base of the "professionals" by termlimits. The "professionals" have not taken us up upward, but downward.
I do not say the constitutional guarantee of electing anyone we choose to represent us should be done away with. I am saying that perhaps a mandatory break of 4 to 6 years between two consecutive terms in any national elected office is good for the people in general and the nation in particular. It gives those that have led a break from the rigors of government and an opportunity to reacquaint themselves with what it is like to earn a living or make a payroll as most of us have to do. Legislating term limits would not violate the spirit or intent of the Constitution any more than prohibiting the false crying of "fire" in a crowded theater violates the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. Surely there exists among us sufficient quantities of wise, honest, ethical men and women able to be cycled in and out of positions of power rather than the less than 600"professional politicians" seemingly concreted in those positions of power now. To believe otherwise speaks poorly of the quality of the American people and damns us to extinction.
The Fall Of A Republic
While the thirteen American colonies were still under British control, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote the following:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage. Professor Alexander Tyler
And where is America on the progression scale now?
I think it is past time for the good people of this nation to rise up and loudly proclaim that enough is enough and work to set this country back on course if that is possible. There is absolutely no logical reason why America should go the way of past great civilizations if we can restore honor and integrity in ourgovernment and a sense of patriotism in our people. There is no reason why the"Gimmemores" and the "Mefirsts" should prevail in our society.
We must remember that our country has a spirit unprecedented in the affairs of man. Many past civilizations were mighty and victorious in war,conquering and exploiting millions, but I can think of none that have been as magnanimous as America towards those it once counted as enemies. What past great civilization reached out and helped those it had vanquished as America has done for Germany, Japan, and Russia? What other nation has stepped aside so graciously when previously vanquished foes and victims of their foe's conquests petitioned for a return to self government? Of all the real estate captured by American fighting men and paid for with their blood, America has only two very small territories remaining, American Samoa and Guam, and they will be granted independence the moment they decide to go it on their own. Neither seem willing to break the bonds with America at the moment. Though not the only point of uniqueness, this particular one speaks reams about the heart and soul of America. It is only recently that America's power has been cowardly misused for nefarious purpose, but there is no reason for this to continue if we elect honest, ethical and courageous men and women to represent and lead us. If we do not do this, we will rapidly become yet another self inflicted social failure.
The people of America need to teach themselves to discern the difference between politicians and statesmen and the difference is great. A politician is: a person engaged in party politics as a profession; a person primarily interested inpolitical office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons. Astatesman is: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies; one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship. America is cursed with far too many politicians and far too few statesmen in my opinion. While we may have become a nation of blind adherence to political rhetoric due to our laziness and unwillingness to get the facts and think on our own, there is no reason we cannot become a nation of wise, informed citizens choosing those that display the highest standards of honor, integrity,and moral courage to lead us.
Nowhere in any of the many founding documents of our country do I find any idea among the framers of our nation that there would rise up an exalted chaste of professional politicians who exhibit the very worst of the definition and who would, by hook or crook, build and maintain a power base by redistributing the wealth of others. That concept would be absolutely abhorrent to them. They were the ones willing to go to war with England and risk everything over unfair and burdensome taxation issues. I think they had in mind a republic led by statesmen selflessly dedicated to the good of the nation. Perhaps the best thing Americacan do to save itself is to break the power base of the "professionals" by termlimits. The "professionals" have not taken us up upward, but downward.
I do not say the constitutional guarantee of electing anyone we choose to represent us should be done away with. I am saying that perhaps a mandatory break of 4 to 6 years between two consecutive terms in any national elected office is good for the people in general and the nation in particular. It gives those that have led a break from the rigors of government and an opportunity to reacquaint themselves with what it is like to earn a living or make a payroll as most of us have to do. Legislating term limits would not violate the spirit or intent of the Constitution any more than prohibiting the false crying of "fire" in a crowded theater violates the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. Surely there exists among us sufficient quantities of wise, honest, ethical men and women able to be cycled in and out of positions of power rather than the less than 600"professional politicians" seemingly concreted in those positions of power now. To believe otherwise speaks poorly of the quality of the American people and damns us to extinction.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Sleeping Pill
The Marines have discovered a .223 sleeping pill appears to cure radical Islamic hostility and that terrorists will only listen to reason when covered with enough dirt to remove all distractions.
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
Single Marine
The flatulence of a single Marine in combat defending freedom is a sound sweeter by far than the voice of a million Streisands in concert fattening a personal bank account.
--- William Fortner 2004 ---
--- William Fortner 2004 ---
Shipwreck Is Certain
If the current crop of presidential hopefuls is the very best America can find to steer the ship of state then we must prepare ourselves for salvage operations. Whether a sandbar in calm seas or a reef in a storm, shipwreck looks certain.
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
Shariah Law
An American man has a family who have individual rights guaranteed by law. A Muslim owns some women and children over which, by Shariah Law, he essentially has the power of life and death.
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
The Buck Stops Here
A cancer started in the sixties that America still refuses to recognize as such so the painful treatment required to eliminate it has never been performed. That cancer has metastasized into every walk of life. America has not fared well on the moral decay that began in the sixties and permeates national leadership and the bureaucracy that supports it. I wonder if America will ever be as we seniors once knew it. What is the cure for unconstitutional government bloat, mismanagement of the public purse and cavalier indifference to the electorate? What laxative will flush from the body politic dishonest politicians infected with haughtiness, avarice, incompetence and the thirst for power? What antibiotic will kill the deadly germs of political correctness, political narrow-mindedness and political ignorance? What poultice will remove the greed many have that extends to demanding the wealth earned by others as their just entitlement? What elixir will restore respect for others, personal property and those in authority? What potion will regenerate self reliance, pride in accomplishment and the will to excel? What nostrum will reinduce patriotism and pride in America? What scalpel will sever the federal bonds that ensnare our children in a web of misinformation, socialist indoctrination and institutionalized mediocrity? What psychological breakthrough will restore God to the position of leadership in our lives He enjoyed when we were children? What miracle drug will restore America as we knew it just a few decades ago and reestablish the family as the national unit? Perhaps it isn't a pill, potion, nostrum or elixir we need. Perhaps what we need is to give government a swift kick in the backside at the voting booth and further refuse to contribute to the delinquency of Congress by paying for any legislation the government cannot show is specifically required by the US Constitution. Harry Truman was wrong. The buck stops here.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Shrinking Target (Ltr to the Ed)
I am a retired Limited Duty Officer in the US Navy. I started out as a boot seaman and worked my way up the enlisted and officer ranks for over 30 years to Lieutenant Commander so I have at least a vague idea about military matters. I have grave concerns regarding the seemingly insatiable desire to close military facilities, most particularly naval facilities, worldwide. Enough is by God enough!
Pearl Harbor was wiped out in two hours crippling the Pacific Fleet for months. By the grace of God, the carriers were out. Had they been in port, the disaster would have been magnified many times over. We are putting our defense eggs in fewer and fewer baskets making us vulnerable again. Is there no one in this administration who has read the history of this nation? Who are the brilliant strategists who are making it possible for a few radical terrorists with dirty bombs to critically cripple or even destroy the entire Navy's surface fighting and resupply capability in seconds? This is stupidity at the esoteric level and an invitation to disaster. Take out San Francisco, San Diego, Norfolk, and Jacksonville and our naval capabilities would be grievously harmed. Add Charleston, SC, Kings Bay, GA, and Seattle, WA and the situation becomes critical. That is just seven terrorists and seven weapons.
To think that terrorists will not have this type of weapon in the near future and will not use them is ludicrous. To hope that they could not smuggle in and deploy something as small as those things could be is shear folly. We seemingly can't even prevent ten million illegal aliens from entering the country. To believe that the terror organizations can not and do not think on a scale that grand is dangerous to this nation. Most anyone with average intelligence knows they are cunning, calculating, capable, driven by intense hatred for this country, and, above all, they are patient. They are also vulnerable to manipulation by our strongest potential adversaries.
To believe our self inflicted naval support vulnerabilities are minimized by the fact that other civilian ports are available does in no way take into account the incredibly monumental logistics problems associated with moving millions of tons of material and ammunition to ports not normally used by our Navy, or equipped to handle their peculiar needs. We should be disbursing our forces more to be a harder target, not consolidating and becoming easy pickings for any rogue nation with a pair of tramp steamers and a few cruise missiles available from a number of unfriendly sources.
China effectively owns significant real estate at both ends of the Panama Canal. I think that makes Jacksonville, Kings Bay, and San Diego easy targets today. Who, with any degree of certainty, knows China's capability or their national disposition tomorrow? This continued consolidation, downsizing, and underfunding of the military is an insanity that opens the door for a less peaceful country instead of our own citizens to decide who will rule this nation and have dominion over our future generations. Ronald Reagan said it best when he said that America has never been attacked when it was strong. He was right then and he is right now.
I know that the Department of Defense is a costly branch, but I also know that the second best defense is unacceptable to the American people. I wonder how much more national safety our tax dollars would have bought had not 27 billion dollars been spent on pork barrel projects, a closed border perhaps? I wonder how many soldiers and Marines would be alive today if they had been equipped with body armor and armored Hum Vs that money could have funded? Civilian organizations are taking up donations to properly equip our fighting men! To me, this smacks of malfeasance laid right at the feet of those in the House and Senate.
I think the $1.2 million in federal grant funds spent on a fertilizer center in this state alone could have prevented a lot of needless bloodshed. How could elected federal representatives from this state have signed off on a budget that included something like that while men and women are dying in battle to protect our freedoms? Pork may be an ancient and venerated method of buying the allegiance of the electorate with their own money, but it is self serving politics and I think it beneath the dignity of an American statesman if there are any left.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States specifically mentions "providing for the common defense," and Section 8, Clause 13 requires Congress to "Provide and maintain a Navy." I do not think for one instant the founding fathers of this nation meant the Navy to be anything short of the best we could afford and I think the constitutional terminology includes the shore infrastructure to maintain it. I think Congress has failed miserably the American people and our fighting men and women from all branches of the military in this respect. I think it is almost criminal that we have to muster the reserves to put a couple of hundred thousand pairs of ill equipped boots on the ground in Iraq. To me, that is a failure to provide for the defense and a disgrace to this nation. You should all be ashamed, $27 billion dollars worth.
I admit I am far, far removed from the conference rooms where intelligence reports are read and strategy is formulated, but I do know that even the dumbest corporal will not let his men group together so they can all be taken out easily.
Bill Fortner
Pearl Harbor was wiped out in two hours crippling the Pacific Fleet for months. By the grace of God, the carriers were out. Had they been in port, the disaster would have been magnified many times over. We are putting our defense eggs in fewer and fewer baskets making us vulnerable again. Is there no one in this administration who has read the history of this nation? Who are the brilliant strategists who are making it possible for a few radical terrorists with dirty bombs to critically cripple or even destroy the entire Navy's surface fighting and resupply capability in seconds? This is stupidity at the esoteric level and an invitation to disaster. Take out San Francisco, San Diego, Norfolk, and Jacksonville and our naval capabilities would be grievously harmed. Add Charleston, SC, Kings Bay, GA, and Seattle, WA and the situation becomes critical. That is just seven terrorists and seven weapons.
To think that terrorists will not have this type of weapon in the near future and will not use them is ludicrous. To hope that they could not smuggle in and deploy something as small as those things could be is shear folly. We seemingly can't even prevent ten million illegal aliens from entering the country. To believe that the terror organizations can not and do not think on a scale that grand is dangerous to this nation. Most anyone with average intelligence knows they are cunning, calculating, capable, driven by intense hatred for this country, and, above all, they are patient. They are also vulnerable to manipulation by our strongest potential adversaries.
To believe our self inflicted naval support vulnerabilities are minimized by the fact that other civilian ports are available does in no way take into account the incredibly monumental logistics problems associated with moving millions of tons of material and ammunition to ports not normally used by our Navy, or equipped to handle their peculiar needs. We should be disbursing our forces more to be a harder target, not consolidating and becoming easy pickings for any rogue nation with a pair of tramp steamers and a few cruise missiles available from a number of unfriendly sources.
China effectively owns significant real estate at both ends of the Panama Canal. I think that makes Jacksonville, Kings Bay, and San Diego easy targets today. Who, with any degree of certainty, knows China's capability or their national disposition tomorrow? This continued consolidation, downsizing, and underfunding of the military is an insanity that opens the door for a less peaceful country instead of our own citizens to decide who will rule this nation and have dominion over our future generations. Ronald Reagan said it best when he said that America has never been attacked when it was strong. He was right then and he is right now.
I know that the Department of Defense is a costly branch, but I also know that the second best defense is unacceptable to the American people. I wonder how much more national safety our tax dollars would have bought had not 27 billion dollars been spent on pork barrel projects, a closed border perhaps? I wonder how many soldiers and Marines would be alive today if they had been equipped with body armor and armored Hum Vs that money could have funded? Civilian organizations are taking up donations to properly equip our fighting men! To me, this smacks of malfeasance laid right at the feet of those in the House and Senate.
I think the $1.2 million in federal grant funds spent on a fertilizer center in this state alone could have prevented a lot of needless bloodshed. How could elected federal representatives from this state have signed off on a budget that included something like that while men and women are dying in battle to protect our freedoms? Pork may be an ancient and venerated method of buying the allegiance of the electorate with their own money, but it is self serving politics and I think it beneath the dignity of an American statesman if there are any left.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States specifically mentions "providing for the common defense," and Section 8, Clause 13 requires Congress to "Provide and maintain a Navy." I do not think for one instant the founding fathers of this nation meant the Navy to be anything short of the best we could afford and I think the constitutional terminology includes the shore infrastructure to maintain it. I think Congress has failed miserably the American people and our fighting men and women from all branches of the military in this respect. I think it is almost criminal that we have to muster the reserves to put a couple of hundred thousand pairs of ill equipped boots on the ground in Iraq. To me, that is a failure to provide for the defense and a disgrace to this nation. You should all be ashamed, $27 billion dollars worth.
I admit I am far, far removed from the conference rooms where intelligence reports are read and strategy is formulated, but I do know that even the dumbest corporal will not let his men group together so they can all be taken out easily.
Bill Fortner
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Shame
Shame is utterly devastating to a statesman. Politicians are immune to it.
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
End Slavery
Apparently the only possible way to end slavery in Africa and Muslim brutality against women world wide is to find a way to blame it on George W. Bush so it will get media attention.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Settled Science
Global warming is "settled science"...just as sure as the sun revolves around the earth and Bill Clinton didn't inhale.
---William Fortner 2007 ---
---William Fortner 2007 ---
Seed Corn
What "the people want" is not necessarily what they need or what is best for them or America. Unfortunately, the government has lost the courage to say no. Left to their own devices, "the people" will eat the seed corn.
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
Secrets
Apparently the way to guarantee widespread dissemination of secrets no longer necessarily includes women. Now the methods seem to be "telephone, telegraph, and tell a congressional representative." See "Leaky Leahy".
--- William Fortner 2001 ---
--- William Fortner 2001 ---
Seatbelts
The same states that cite you for not wearing a seatbelt in a car with 6 airbags think nothing of putting children in school buses protected only by their jockey shorts and training bras.
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
The Effects of Unlimited Congressional Service
It is ironic that Franklin D. Roosevelt, after serving almost three full terms as President, was wise enough to realize that term limitations for the Presidency were necessary to prevent a popular President from becoming powerful enough to set in motion those things that would guarantee his reelection. Yet the Congress in session at that time was unable to realize that the same situation could and did exist among themselves. Limiting the Presidential term required a change to the Constitution, ratified by three fourths of the states within seven years, so there was ample time for the light to dawn on the Congress. I think the light did dawn, but Congress was, and still is, reluctant to place any limitations on itself. The lack of term limitations for members of Congress has caused three major problems with government today. These problems are that Congressional members have become politicians rather than statesmen, they have become too distant from those whom they represent, and they have become addicted to the power Congressional position provides.
The first problem is one best explained by definition. There is a subtle difference between a politician and a statesman. While both are involved in the business of government, a politician is described by Webster's Dictionary as "a person seeking or holding a political office with implications of seeking personal or partisan gain, scheming opportunism;" while a statesman is described as "a person who shows wisdom, skill, and vision in conducting state affairs and treating public issues." I think anyone in touch with national affairs is aware that the vast majority of Congressmen are not fit to wear the title of statesman. The daily news is rampant with petty partisan political battles being waged on the floor of the House and Senate while major issues like the annual budget, the budget deficit, and the current recession (with its resulting loss of jobs) await consideration. Congress cannot point fingers anywhere but at themselves since Congress, and Congress alone, controls the purse strings of this nation. It has been years since a budget was passed prior to the end of the fiscal year as required by law. The balanced budget law enacted by Congress itself is virtually ignored, and the first response by Congress to solve the problems facing this nation today is to throw more money at the problem. Politicians do not have the stomach for taking a public stand on sensitive issues that can affect their continued access to power and the public trough. Statesmen do have the wisdom and courage to make the hard decisions as they do not serve for personal gain and are not seeking reelection. The bottom line is that a politician is engaged in a profession and professionals seek personal gain, whether money or power or both. A statesman is engaged in a noble endeavor and seeks only that which is good and best for all. Governing this country is a responsibility to be shouldered, not a profession to be practiced. We have elected too few statesmen.
The second problem is that, by its very nature, Congressional service isolates its members from the everyday problems and struggles of the common people. After ten years of public service, it is easy to forget how difficult it is to earn a living in business, on the farm, or in the labor force. After fifteen or twenty years, it is impossible for that public official to be in close touch with the grass roots of our society. The common practice of visits to the big cities and speeches designed to ensure reelection have done absolutely nothing to re-acquaint Congressional members with the concerns and problems of their constituents. Even letters to members of Congress receive no personal attention. Replies are written by staff members many layers removed from the Congressional member. When is the last time you saw your Representative or Senator face-to-face? When was the last time they visited your town for an open forum on any issue? This was not so at the beginning of this nation. Members of the Continental Congress were engaged in private businesses and trades and were living at the grass-roots level accessible to those whom they represented. Our founding fathers did not intend that Congress be populated by professional representatives. They intended that the members would be from all walks of life and bring that aggregate knowledge and wisdom to bear in governing this nation. They did not foresee a Congress made up of so many from the same professional background and education. We, as a people, fear that government has gotten too big and too complex for the average person to be an effective legislator, or to even comprehend, for that matter. One of the most frequent charges leveled by an incumbent against an opponent is that he or she has no experience in government and will be eaten by the wolves. Perhaps it is so, but if it is, then the government is not as it should be and we must change it.
Last, there is a clause in the Declaration of Independence of which most Americans are unaware. That clause states, "and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." That is human nature, pure and simple. Our founding fathers knew about this human frailty, and you can rest assured that every member of Congress is well aware of it. Congressional members have become too comfortable and less responsive to the voters because they know that American voters are most likely to reelect someone they know, no matter what their track record is, rather than to elect someone they don't know. It should come as no surprise that recent newspaper articles and news commentaries on this subject report that 98% of Congressmen in office today are incumbents. Many are veterans of more than four terms and virtually unbeatable in their home states. They have become powerful and have set in motion those things that will assure reelection; they have made the deals that guarantee status-preservation. Congressional power is immense, awesome, and heady. It is also insidious since it induces a desire for more. It has rendered Congressmen and Congresswomen too vulnerable to the influence of political action committees. We have, by neglect, left good men too long in the corrupting embrace of power and many have become corrupted by it.
As you can see by the results, the lack of term limits for Congressional members detracts from the ability of the governed to govern and often subverts those we elect if left in office too long. A regular, periodic infusion of new members to Congress, fresh with new ideas and energy, can do much to resolve many of the thorny issues that plague this country. If limits are properly set, they will not permit enough time for a statesman to become a politician, nor will they permit the building of a power base. It will also eliminate the need to become part of the "good-old-boy" system to get things done and destroy the disproportionate power of some exceptionally well funded political action committees. Coming fresh from the real world, the new people will be in tune with the grass roots of society and have a better feel for the problems. As a final thought, it strikes me that the ultimate and most damaging effect of not limiting terms for members of Congress is that we have come to hold those members too much in awe and, as a result, have permitted ourselves to become servants of the government rather than the government servants to us.
The first problem is one best explained by definition. There is a subtle difference between a politician and a statesman. While both are involved in the business of government, a politician is described by Webster's Dictionary as "a person seeking or holding a political office with implications of seeking personal or partisan gain, scheming opportunism;" while a statesman is described as "a person who shows wisdom, skill, and vision in conducting state affairs and treating public issues." I think anyone in touch with national affairs is aware that the vast majority of Congressmen are not fit to wear the title of statesman. The daily news is rampant with petty partisan political battles being waged on the floor of the House and Senate while major issues like the annual budget, the budget deficit, and the current recession (with its resulting loss of jobs) await consideration. Congress cannot point fingers anywhere but at themselves since Congress, and Congress alone, controls the purse strings of this nation. It has been years since a budget was passed prior to the end of the fiscal year as required by law. The balanced budget law enacted by Congress itself is virtually ignored, and the first response by Congress to solve the problems facing this nation today is to throw more money at the problem. Politicians do not have the stomach for taking a public stand on sensitive issues that can affect their continued access to power and the public trough. Statesmen do have the wisdom and courage to make the hard decisions as they do not serve for personal gain and are not seeking reelection. The bottom line is that a politician is engaged in a profession and professionals seek personal gain, whether money or power or both. A statesman is engaged in a noble endeavor and seeks only that which is good and best for all. Governing this country is a responsibility to be shouldered, not a profession to be practiced. We have elected too few statesmen.
The second problem is that, by its very nature, Congressional service isolates its members from the everyday problems and struggles of the common people. After ten years of public service, it is easy to forget how difficult it is to earn a living in business, on the farm, or in the labor force. After fifteen or twenty years, it is impossible for that public official to be in close touch with the grass roots of our society. The common practice of visits to the big cities and speeches designed to ensure reelection have done absolutely nothing to re-acquaint Congressional members with the concerns and problems of their constituents. Even letters to members of Congress receive no personal attention. Replies are written by staff members many layers removed from the Congressional member. When is the last time you saw your Representative or Senator face-to-face? When was the last time they visited your town for an open forum on any issue? This was not so at the beginning of this nation. Members of the Continental Congress were engaged in private businesses and trades and were living at the grass-roots level accessible to those whom they represented. Our founding fathers did not intend that Congress be populated by professional representatives. They intended that the members would be from all walks of life and bring that aggregate knowledge and wisdom to bear in governing this nation. They did not foresee a Congress made up of so many from the same professional background and education. We, as a people, fear that government has gotten too big and too complex for the average person to be an effective legislator, or to even comprehend, for that matter. One of the most frequent charges leveled by an incumbent against an opponent is that he or she has no experience in government and will be eaten by the wolves. Perhaps it is so, but if it is, then the government is not as it should be and we must change it.
Last, there is a clause in the Declaration of Independence of which most Americans are unaware. That clause states, "and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." That is human nature, pure and simple. Our founding fathers knew about this human frailty, and you can rest assured that every member of Congress is well aware of it. Congressional members have become too comfortable and less responsive to the voters because they know that American voters are most likely to reelect someone they know, no matter what their track record is, rather than to elect someone they don't know. It should come as no surprise that recent newspaper articles and news commentaries on this subject report that 98% of Congressmen in office today are incumbents. Many are veterans of more than four terms and virtually unbeatable in their home states. They have become powerful and have set in motion those things that will assure reelection; they have made the deals that guarantee status-preservation. Congressional power is immense, awesome, and heady. It is also insidious since it induces a desire for more. It has rendered Congressmen and Congresswomen too vulnerable to the influence of political action committees. We have, by neglect, left good men too long in the corrupting embrace of power and many have become corrupted by it.
As you can see by the results, the lack of term limits for Congressional members detracts from the ability of the governed to govern and often subverts those we elect if left in office too long. A regular, periodic infusion of new members to Congress, fresh with new ideas and energy, can do much to resolve many of the thorny issues that plague this country. If limits are properly set, they will not permit enough time for a statesman to become a politician, nor will they permit the building of a power base. It will also eliminate the need to become part of the "good-old-boy" system to get things done and destroy the disproportionate power of some exceptionally well funded political action committees. Coming fresh from the real world, the new people will be in tune with the grass roots of society and have a better feel for the problems. As a final thought, it strikes me that the ultimate and most damaging effect of not limiting terms for members of Congress is that we have come to hold those members too much in awe and, as a result, have permitted ourselves to become servants of the government rather than the government servants to us.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Stud Field Mouse
An old man marries a six year-old child, benevolently waits until she is nine before having intercourse with her and the act doesn't kill or do grievous bodily harm to the child? The old man must have been hung like a stud field mouse.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Search and Destroy
"Search and Destroy Mission" -- A political ploy used by the Democrat Party to find a problem, ANY problem however minor, with a Republican that can be blown up to epic proportions and used against a candidate of that party. It is normally employed with another Democrat ploy, "Duck and Cover" which seeks to minimize the most heinous lapses of moral and ethical judgement on the part of Democrats.
---William Fortner 2000---
---William Fortner 2000---
Inherently Cowardly
There is something inherently cowardly and utterly revolting about a man who covers his face then brandishes a weapon to threaten others. It indicates a total lack of balls.
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
--- William Fortner 2006 ---
Libsocommunocrats
If truth was a legal requirement for the description of political parties then there would be no Democrats. There would be Libsocommunocrats.
---William Fortner 2009---
---William Fortner 2009---
Democrat Putrefycation
It took centuries for internal rot to cause Rome to fall. The Democrats are putrefying at a rate that will destroy America in a mere two or three years.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
China
In the rush to become a manufacturing giant China has made some serious errors that endangered their customers, but those pale in comparison to what it has done to itself.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Victims Of Welfare
The Problem.
The American Welfare System, like all other government social programs, is a bad idea gotten worse. It may be different if we lived in a utopian society where greed, dishonesty, and unscrupulous conduct were unheard of and the work ethic, respect for the property of others, and regard for our fellow man was universal; but we do not. What was originally designed to be a safety net for all has become: (1) a hammock for some, (2) an anchor for others, (3) a political power base for still others, and (4) suffers from inefficient and inept management. Welfare has come to be thought of as a right (which it is not) to be demanded from the government, instead of a gift from fellow Americans (which it is) to be gratefully received and judiciously used. The reality of the welfare system in this country is tragic. It has victimized us all: giver, receiver, and government alike. None have gone unscathed. To understand the tragedy, we must look beyond the scandals and headlines to the birth of our form of government and our founding documents.
First and foremost, we must realize that by its very nature, our government manufactures absolutely nothing. The government gets all of its money from its citizens, although not all contribute. When the government takes money from its citizens it incurs a grave responsibility for the careful management and spending thereof -- the government becomes guardian of the public trust. That being the case, there is one single commitment the government must make if America is to survive and remain strong, and that is that the government must get tangible goods or services for each dollar spent. Welfare programs provide neither of these. It has been historically proven time and again that it is absolutely vital that a government, any government, must stay out of the social and financial business of its citizens. Failure to do so inevitably results in taking the slippery path to socialism that has ultimately destroyed almost every other culture (Watt 63-76). The fates of the major socialist governments of this century should be a warning to all of us. The USSR has collapsed, Cuba does not appear to be long following, and the Chinese are quickly relaxing their socialist ideology in the southern provinces near Hong Kong and are switching to a more capitalist mode of operation. The Chinese are not changing because they want to, but because they can see the future of their current ideology. It is not likely that the Russians, the Cubans, or the Chinese will fully embrace democracy in the next century, but it is likely that America, on its current path, will become far more socialistic in the next two decades. It will happen because we have lost touch with our founding principles and documents.
It may come as a revelation to some and a shock to others, but a minimum standard of living for American citizens is neither guaranteed, mandated, nor even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Promoting the "general welfare" is mentioned in the Constitution, but has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth from one group of Americans to another. It does have to do with the Postal Service and interstate highway systems (post roads), regulating the use of public airways and airspace, coining money and regulating its value, fixing standard weights and measures, managing emigration and trade, and making foreign policy; all of which benefit all Americans (Constitution Sect. 8). There is nothing in either of our founding documents that singles out any minority of any kind for special treatment or empowers the government to become a social or benevolent organization. Our Constitution goes to great length to stress equality under the law and in responsibility for governing this country. Nowhere does it guarantee equality in lifestyle. "A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot" may be desirable, but it is only political rhetoric. What is guaranteed is equal opportunity and freedom from governmental intrusion, both in our private and business lives.
The Hammock.
Some of our citizens have decided that they desire little from life except perpetual economic security. They have also discovered that our benevolent government will "freely" provide that security for them with little or no effort on their part. These citizens have found a hammock to rest in for the remainder of their lives at the expense of their fellow citizens. These people have become professional beggars. Orien Johnson makes no distinction between those who beg in the streets and those perpetually on relief rolls (233). The similarity is striking. These sentiments are echoed by Hans Sennholz (457). But there is a high price to be paid for this "free" economic security that our government dispenses, and that price is the loss of hope, initiative, self-respect, and moral values. This was most graphically described by Earle and Ann Shelby in "Why The Dole Doesn't Work." In that article, they describe a woman, her mother, and grandmother in a courtroom testifying against a man who had impregnated all three of them. While being pregnant by the same man was a common thread in this tragedy, they also identified another; all three were supported by welfare and welfare would support their children (Shealy 441). That would mean four generations in the same family that have made no effort toward economic independence -- four generations! In that same article, the Shelbys reveal that welfare feeds one out of every sixteen New York residents and they cite a witness for a legislative investigation as describing the "welfare jungles" as "clusters of hopeless, demoralized people reduced to total dependence on the relief check" (442). Cecil Moore, a Negro lawyer and head of the NAACP in Philadelphia, is quoted by the Shelbys as saying, "Go down into the area of my city where most of the relief people live. Hardly anyone there has pride in himself. That's what public assistance has done for them. To me, relief is a self-perpetuating degradation, the worst thing that could have happened to my race" (446). Mr. Moore is correct except it is not a race issue. This is America, all ethnic groups suffer equally from "free" government assistance; all must give up a significant measure of their freedom for the "free" economic security. In his essay titled "Morals and the Welfare State", F. A. Harper is of the opinion that slavery could be described as another form of the Welfare State "because of its likeness in restrictions and 'benefits'" (492). This loss of freedom does not stop with the relief recipients, it extends to those who must pay for the "free" benefits.
The Anchor.
As I said earlier, our government is not a money making organization. It depends on taxpayers for its sole support. Harper put it very succinctly when he said, "Persons produce everything which the Welfare State takes before it gives some back as benefits. . . . Only by thus confiscating what persons have produced can the Welfare State 'satisfy the needs of the people'" (442). As more recipients are added to the welfare rolls and benefits expand to raise the living standard of the indigent and indolent, the percentage of a taxpayer's earnings required to support them also increases, with a commensurate decrease in the taxpayer's living standard. This greatly hinders the average American's ability to provide for himself and his family both now and in his plans for future economic security. I have to agree with William Chamberlain's statement that, "It may seem humane and benevolent to provide free medical care to the aged by taxing the general population. But a more realistic form of benevolence would be to leave people in their productive years enough of their earnings so that they could save for medical care and other emergencies" (467). The tax burden placed on working Americans is essentially an anchor that must be dragged along as they struggle toward a better lifestyle and economic security in their old age. Worse yet, the burden, due to its size, often prevents any progress in that direction, and many working Americans find themselves no better off one year from the last.
There is the hidden burden of violence that not only affects taxpayers but all Americans. Francis Mahaffy raises an interesting issue concerning the connection between socialistic policies (welfare) and violence in society in general. He states, "The causes of violence often lie in the philosophy of compulsion that characterizes all types of socialism. And because socialism invites violence, it flaunts the moral law which restricts the use of force against others to the restraint of evil" (465). In a companion statement concerning taxation he says, "This legal plunder of property by the state is rooted in disrespect for life; for to seize property is to violate the life sustained by that property. Carried to its logical conclusions, the recipient of legal plunder assumes a right to the property and thus to the life of his better situated neighbor. When legal plunder becomes the accepted norm of everyday life, it is little wonder that more naked violence breaks out in our cities. The perpetrators of this violence have been taught through effective propaganda that they have the right to the fruits of the labor of others" (465). I believe there is a correlation. I am old enough to remember life in the very early Sixties and I remember a country where unlocked doors were common and any violent crime a national horror. Today, most people cannot fit enough locks and bars on their homes to guarantee safety and violent crime has become so prevalent it is now just a meaningless statistic. It is a curious fact that welfare programs have kept pace with, or perhaps led, the rise in violent crime. Henry Hazlett reports that in 1961 there were 45 domestic welfare programs in existence and in 1968 there were 1,571; of those, 478 were in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare alone (181). This is 1992. I wonder what the total is now?
There is a burden of conscience also included in welfare programs that generates a moral dilemma for both the recipient and the government. In the report by Earle and Ann Shelby, they describe the following situation, "In Chicago, we talked to a reliefer whose pay with a railroad gang had been $220 a month. When he lost his job, with a wife and 10 children to feed, he received $495 monthly in relief. This sum is now fixed as the family's scale of living. No matter what job the man takes, any wage less than $495 will be supplemented by welfare. Thus ADC becomes essentially a guarantee of annual minimum wage" (444). What a dilemma! With 10 children and a wife, why should a man work and not spend time with his family now that he can, particularly if they are living better than twice as good as before? I can't think of any logical reason. The Shelbys add, "What, then, should we tell employed workers, also with large families, who pay taxes to support their dependent neighbors who are living at a higher level than their own" (444)? I have no answer for them. Life is not fair, but this seems to be a criminal disregard for taxpayers on the part of government.
The Power Base.
Speaking of the government's part in this, the government must bear the vast majority of the blame for this situation. To dispel the myth that government is only responding to public demands in providing all of the social and economic programs in its vast inventory, I offer the following excerpt from Emerson Schmidt's essay "The Public Demands." This comment was made by the secretary of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department in a bitter address before the American Council on Education in October 1961 and printed in the Washington Post, Oct. 6. "In great disgust he cast aside his manuscript and lectured and scolded his audience for not coming to the rescue of educational subsidies via the U.S. Treasury. 'Mail urging Congress to do something for education was infinitesimal. There was a great void, a great silence'" (404). The Department of Agriculture fared no better. Schmidt includes the following tidbit by Ezra Taft Benson, the secretary of Agriculture for 8 years in the 1950's. "I had evidence that an overwhelming majority of the farmers favored programs that would provide them with greater freedom and less government regulation and control . . . I had little pressure from farmers for legislation involving attempts on production control and price fixing " (404). There is no reason to believe that public clamor for welfare programs differ from the foregoing examples at all. Schmidt sums it up rather well in the following quote. "'The public demands more government spending, more programs, and more services . . . ' is widely advanced as the reason for rising taxes, swelling bureaucracy, and the accretion of political power in Washington. 'We must educate the public to demand less . . .' is said to be the remedy.'. . . Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that the general public never makes any demands on the public purse -- with possibly one exception; only under extreme provocation or when the economic position of the public is abruptly and materially altered as in a major disaster or depression" (401). If the public isn't demanding the programs, the government expansion, or the political power they entail, who is?
Who indeed! Perhaps this snippet written by Leonard Read will shed some light on the "who". "Aladdin's jinni performed only on call; it responded to wishes when requested. The modern American version, on the other hand, displays zealous initiative in that it: (1) invents wishes for people; (2) persuades people that these wishes are their own and then actively solicits their gratification; (3) convinces people these wishes are among their natural rights, and (4) casts itself in the role of helper. Mythology in its heyday never came up with a jinni to equal this" (Read 419). If it isn't clear yet, this comment by Lois Sargent should remove all doubt. "As promulgated today, the aspect of security most frequently relates to economic conditions and the psychological effects of financial well-being or want. . . . The power hungry men who wish to build an all powerful government deliberately arouse fear of insecurity and sell their programs under the guise of immutable security" (Sargent 432). If we are surprised that our Congressmen and women are the architects of this national disaster and the massive federal bureaucracy are the builders, then we need to get our heads out of the sand and take a look around. We need to heed the words of Woodrow Wilson, "The history of freedom is the history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it (Speech, New York, Sept. 9, 1912)."
It was nowhere in the minds of our founding fathers to provide public money to those who had not earned it. Many who signed the Declaration of Independence feared just that. Thomas Jefferson warned that this country would remain great only as long as its citizens didn't find their way to the public trough. Sadly, not only have many found their way there, the government, in its desire to expand and control, is actively leading them there and is bent on keeping them there. To expand its power base and control, the government begins conditioning our children at an early age to be dependent on it with free school breakfast and lunch programs. This is followed by tuition aid, federal education grants, and student loans. These last three are very perplexing as many non-governmental scholarships go unused every year. It doesn't appear that government "help" is needed, but it is available with the inherent administrative costs to the American public. It is also disturbing that, only in the last few years, the government began to seriously require the repayment of student loans. This is indicative that the government is not the prudent manager nor fierce guardian of the public trust it would have us believe.
Feeding at the public trough may be somewhat tasty, but it is neither filling nor nourishing, and it totally destroys backbone, pride, and hope. Worse yet, it mistakenly places the act of benevolence on the government and elected officials rather than on the people that provide the gift. This error in perception also fosters a dangerous dependency on and an unhealthy loyalty to those officials in power. This is the reason many congressmen and congresswomen get reelected. To an unbelievably great degree, their continued status is purchased by every taxpayer in this country. Our politicians have discovered that they can buy votes with public money (taxes) through welfare programs.
We are Americans, the richest people on earth, we should be charitable, our government should be benevolent, our less fortunate citizens should be able to share in this great wealth. Should they? Should they really? If you work hard and earn enough money to buy a nice automobile, should you be forced to buy a lesser model due to being forced to donate to a charitable organization you do not subscribe to -- no? If you work hard and buy a house, should you be forced to permit me to live with you because I have no home -- no? If you work hard and earn a wage, should you be forced to give part of it to those who have decided not to work -- no? Irritating thoughts are they not? The irritant is the word forced. Should you have compassion for your fellow man and help him when in need? Yes, most assuredly. Would you help your fellow man when in need? The government obviously doesn't think so and it is not in its best interest for you to think so either, although the money raised by private organizations to support a plethora of worthy causes belies this. Can you tell when a person really needs help or is in a state of need due to an unwillingness to help himself? The government has decided that you cannot be trusted with that determination. Only the government, with its bewildering array of programs, bureaus, departments, and offices knows who needs help, what kind of help they need, and how much help they need--and how much of your earnings you will forfeit to provide that help. This is a far cry from "promote the general welfare" spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution. What our government is promoting is not "the general welfare." What it is promoting is more and bigger and more powerful government at the expense of the freedom and economic survival of us all. I, for one, resent the government for robbing me of the pleasure of being as charitable as I would like to those causes I think worthy and support.
What does this cradle-to-the-grave care provided by government do to the fiber of this country? The effects are slow and insidious. As government has eased its way more and more into the lives of its citizens, there has been a slow, but, steady self-generated demand for more and more government involvement. People are being led to the public trough. When more children mean more money, children appear. When there is no need or responsibility to directly support families, fathers disappear. When children are not properly cared for, the state takes over and mothers disappear. When families disappear, then the whole fiber of this nation strains and breaks. At that point, the government becomes mother and father to us all and we become totally dependent on it -- then freedom disappears. This doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen because the American people are stupid or incompetent. It happens because the liberal government publicly shames those who have and seduces those who have not at the expense of the freedom of both. The middle man, the government, is the winner because it gains power and expands. Class envy was not a significant American trait until after the middle of this century. Admiration of, and aspiration to, a particular status was in vogue prior to that.
Inefficiency And Ineptitude.
Government should not be involved with social problems. It may also come as a shock to many that there is no mandate in any of our founding documents that requires the government to resolve social problems. The reason for that is that the government, by its very nature, is not designed or equipped to do that. When it tries, it fails miserably. It has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, over a long period of time, that it cannot effectively and efficiently deal with those issues. We should not require it (and I don't think we do). As a matter of fact, we should insist that government get out and stay out of social issues. If anyone thinks the government can deal with social issues, one look at our nation's Capitol will shatter that thought. Case in point, the Congress of the United States is, by Constitutional mandate, the sole legislative authority for the District of Columbia and, therefore, totally responsible for that district. If the government could resolve social issues, Washington, DC would be more than a pretty facade. The real structure of Washington, D.C. has been the subject of almost continuous newscasts, newspaper articles, and commentary in recent months. The truth is that all types of violent crime are rampant, with the per capita murder rate the highest, in the country. Illegal narcotics are readily available, prostitution flourishes, graft is a matter of public record, housing is poor, and unemployment is high. All this in a 10 mile square area that should be the epitome of what America is. It fills me with shame to think that foreign visitors and dignitaries decide who we are based on their impression of Washington, DC. If the Congress and its massive bureaucracy can't resolve the pressing social issues in a 10 square mile area, how can we expect it to deal with those issues on a national scale? It simply can't.
Another notable example of total government control and its resulting dismal and shameful failure is the treatment of Native Americans. There is not another country or people conquered by American forces in the history of this nation who have suffered as miserably as the American Indian. No other entity in this country has control over Indian affairs except the Federal Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs yet the state of the Indian Nations in many cases approaches that of third world countries. Edna Shaker states, "The 75-year result of all this bureaucratic domination and billions of dollars stands as eloquent testimony of the futility and debility incurred the 'state way'. American Indians have been maintained in a state of shocking poverty, ignorance, disease, and complete dependence. . . . The average life span is 45 years. Infant mortality rates are about three times as high as the average for all Americans. Death rates from preventable diseases such as gastroenteritis, influenza, pneumonia and tuberculosis run up to 8 times higher than the general population. It is clear that the federal government has not even been able to do a minimum job of sustaining health" (436).
Another graphic example of governmental inefficiency and ineptitude was reported by Douglas Kalajian, a staff writer for the Miami Herald. He reports that it takes 12 pages of forms to apply for public assistance in the Miami area. In addition to that, the relief worker must fill out an additional 13 page form that duplicates the majority of the information already provided by the applicant. The welfare recipient must fill out a 4 page form weekly and provide receipts for rent, pay stubs, canceled checks, and other personal documents to remain on relief. This is neither efficient nor effective program management. Being the guardian of the public trust, the government must, as a matter of image, self-interest and self-preservation, take care to ensure the general perception that public funds are used properly. This necessity generates a certain amount of paranoia on the part of the government due to the number of welfare abuse and fraud cases that have become public knowledge. This paranoia generates an inordinate amount of checks and double checks to weed out fraudulent applicants and detect erroneous payments. This checking and double checking requires a disproportionate salaried staff to manage the effort and delays the receipt of services to those with legitimate need. To further add to the administrative burden of the welfare program, the government requires itself to provide welfare applicants with assistance in filling out the forms or filling them out entirely if the applicant cannot. This requires still more salaried staff and administrative expense.
The Result.
By its unbridled benevolence, the government has completely destroyed personal pride, independence, and the work ethic among approximately 4% of the population and has made the majority of the rest of us dependent on government programs in some form or another.(1) Think about it! Where is government not involved in our everyday lives? Where? We have lost our freedom. We have found our way to the public trough. The damage to the 4% is the most sad. They have not only lost their independence and freedom, but also their dreams, and have become resigned to their fate. So much so that welfare families can now be measured in generations. Hand outs have not helped those families and never will.
A giant bureaucracy has grown around social programs and is apparently out of control. Spending for relief programs demand an increasing tax burden on working Americans and jeopardizes their futures. Congress has used our tax dollars to buy power and have become almost permanent representatives with the increasingly higher pay and expanded perks they freely award themselves. This vote buying has become so pernicious that our representatives gladly rape the national defense budget to get even more dollars to ensure their continued status. The price of a failed social program may be serious, but the price of a failed defense is unacceptable and possibly catastrophic.
What To Do.
Reversion to self-reliance is painful, but it is not in the best interest of this country for any American to remain dependent on the government in any way, shape, or form. It is not prudent for any American to encourage Federal programs that foster any dependence of any kind. The situation that exists today is a shame shared equally among the indigent, the government, and ourselves: the indigent for so readily giving up their freedom and taking the easy way out through the pockets of others; the government for failure to learn from history and its own mistakes; and us for letting our elected representatives rob us and virtually enslave our fellow man.
What will happen to the poor, the homeless, the jobless, the children who will go to school hungry? Those are serious and pressing social problems, but they are not governmental problems. They can be solved by other means. Private organizations like World Neighbors and Development and Technological Assistance International have developed very successful methods and programs to deal with similar problems, none of which involve hand outs I might add (Johnson 229; Hall 237). I think we would all be better off if the massive welfare system was dissolved as rapidly as possible over a period of a few years. The benefits would be that: politicians would lose an unhealthy power base and a means of control over the citizens they are supposed to serve; the average citizen would see a dramatic decrease in taxes which will make more money available for adequate future planning and to the economy, and; the indigent will learn self-reliance, one of the cornerstones in the founding of this country. I would much rather see people earning a living and maintaining their pride and self-respect than being dependent on a handout. What a shocking, radical thought! I have heard some say that it is demeaning to require work for public assistance and that it should be free. Really? I don't think so. Nothing is free, not even freedom.
In Conclusion.
Is it too late to turn this problem around? I have my doubts. I have watched in absolute despair as the "throw the rascals out" movement flexed its muscle, yet the vote was to keep my rascal in. It seems as though we think all congressmen are crooks except ours, at least that is what we are told. What I keep hearing is that congressman so and so brought home the bacon to this or that particular state. Bacon being synonymous with lucrative government contracts, new government facilities, federal money for necessary(?) state projects, or programs designed to cure any one of a multitude of real, imagined, or manufactured social problems. It may be too late if we are truly addicted to political pork. That kind of pork clouds the mind, softens the will, and weakens the backbone. Perhaps Nikita Khrushchev was right when he predicted that our grandchildren would live under socialism. Not because of Russian rockets as he promised, but because we American people will eventually choose socialism over the market economy as opined by Dean Russell (173).
Benevolent governments, like benevolent tyrants, have the same ends in mind: the control of their citizens and subjects without the messy use of force which ultimately hastens their downfall. I don't know what direction the future of this country will take, but I have developed a jaundiced eye towards big government and government programs. I have decided that any percentage of my wages is too much to pay for charitable programs I do not support and have proven detrimental to this country. I am fearful for the future of this country, my home. I know that, historically, no government has ever been reduced in size except by open rebellion or violent revolution. I also know the American people will stand for only so much and no more.
Yes, I am fearful of the future.
The American Welfare System, like all other government social programs, is a bad idea gotten worse. It may be different if we lived in a utopian society where greed, dishonesty, and unscrupulous conduct were unheard of and the work ethic, respect for the property of others, and regard for our fellow man was universal; but we do not. What was originally designed to be a safety net for all has become: (1) a hammock for some, (2) an anchor for others, (3) a political power base for still others, and (4) suffers from inefficient and inept management. Welfare has come to be thought of as a right (which it is not) to be demanded from the government, instead of a gift from fellow Americans (which it is) to be gratefully received and judiciously used. The reality of the welfare system in this country is tragic. It has victimized us all: giver, receiver, and government alike. None have gone unscathed. To understand the tragedy, we must look beyond the scandals and headlines to the birth of our form of government and our founding documents.
First and foremost, we must realize that by its very nature, our government manufactures absolutely nothing. The government gets all of its money from its citizens, although not all contribute. When the government takes money from its citizens it incurs a grave responsibility for the careful management and spending thereof -- the government becomes guardian of the public trust. That being the case, there is one single commitment the government must make if America is to survive and remain strong, and that is that the government must get tangible goods or services for each dollar spent. Welfare programs provide neither of these. It has been historically proven time and again that it is absolutely vital that a government, any government, must stay out of the social and financial business of its citizens. Failure to do so inevitably results in taking the slippery path to socialism that has ultimately destroyed almost every other culture (Watt 63-76). The fates of the major socialist governments of this century should be a warning to all of us. The USSR has collapsed, Cuba does not appear to be long following, and the Chinese are quickly relaxing their socialist ideology in the southern provinces near Hong Kong and are switching to a more capitalist mode of operation. The Chinese are not changing because they want to, but because they can see the future of their current ideology. It is not likely that the Russians, the Cubans, or the Chinese will fully embrace democracy in the next century, but it is likely that America, on its current path, will become far more socialistic in the next two decades. It will happen because we have lost touch with our founding principles and documents.
It may come as a revelation to some and a shock to others, but a minimum standard of living for American citizens is neither guaranteed, mandated, nor even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Promoting the "general welfare" is mentioned in the Constitution, but has absolutely nothing to do with redistributing wealth from one group of Americans to another. It does have to do with the Postal Service and interstate highway systems (post roads), regulating the use of public airways and airspace, coining money and regulating its value, fixing standard weights and measures, managing emigration and trade, and making foreign policy; all of which benefit all Americans (Constitution Sect. 8). There is nothing in either of our founding documents that singles out any minority of any kind for special treatment or empowers the government to become a social or benevolent organization. Our Constitution goes to great length to stress equality under the law and in responsibility for governing this country. Nowhere does it guarantee equality in lifestyle. "A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot" may be desirable, but it is only political rhetoric. What is guaranteed is equal opportunity and freedom from governmental intrusion, both in our private and business lives.
The Hammock.
Some of our citizens have decided that they desire little from life except perpetual economic security. They have also discovered that our benevolent government will "freely" provide that security for them with little or no effort on their part. These citizens have found a hammock to rest in for the remainder of their lives at the expense of their fellow citizens. These people have become professional beggars. Orien Johnson makes no distinction between those who beg in the streets and those perpetually on relief rolls (233). The similarity is striking. These sentiments are echoed by Hans Sennholz (457). But there is a high price to be paid for this "free" economic security that our government dispenses, and that price is the loss of hope, initiative, self-respect, and moral values. This was most graphically described by Earle and Ann Shelby in "Why The Dole Doesn't Work." In that article, they describe a woman, her mother, and grandmother in a courtroom testifying against a man who had impregnated all three of them. While being pregnant by the same man was a common thread in this tragedy, they also identified another; all three were supported by welfare and welfare would support their children (Shealy 441). That would mean four generations in the same family that have made no effort toward economic independence -- four generations! In that same article, the Shelbys reveal that welfare feeds one out of every sixteen New York residents and they cite a witness for a legislative investigation as describing the "welfare jungles" as "clusters of hopeless, demoralized people reduced to total dependence on the relief check" (442). Cecil Moore, a Negro lawyer and head of the NAACP in Philadelphia, is quoted by the Shelbys as saying, "Go down into the area of my city where most of the relief people live. Hardly anyone there has pride in himself. That's what public assistance has done for them. To me, relief is a self-perpetuating degradation, the worst thing that could have happened to my race" (446). Mr. Moore is correct except it is not a race issue. This is America, all ethnic groups suffer equally from "free" government assistance; all must give up a significant measure of their freedom for the "free" economic security. In his essay titled "Morals and the Welfare State", F. A. Harper is of the opinion that slavery could be described as another form of the Welfare State "because of its likeness in restrictions and 'benefits'" (492). This loss of freedom does not stop with the relief recipients, it extends to those who must pay for the "free" benefits.
The Anchor.
As I said earlier, our government is not a money making organization. It depends on taxpayers for its sole support. Harper put it very succinctly when he said, "Persons produce everything which the Welfare State takes before it gives some back as benefits. . . . Only by thus confiscating what persons have produced can the Welfare State 'satisfy the needs of the people'" (442). As more recipients are added to the welfare rolls and benefits expand to raise the living standard of the indigent and indolent, the percentage of a taxpayer's earnings required to support them also increases, with a commensurate decrease in the taxpayer's living standard. This greatly hinders the average American's ability to provide for himself and his family both now and in his plans for future economic security. I have to agree with William Chamberlain's statement that, "It may seem humane and benevolent to provide free medical care to the aged by taxing the general population. But a more realistic form of benevolence would be to leave people in their productive years enough of their earnings so that they could save for medical care and other emergencies" (467). The tax burden placed on working Americans is essentially an anchor that must be dragged along as they struggle toward a better lifestyle and economic security in their old age. Worse yet, the burden, due to its size, often prevents any progress in that direction, and many working Americans find themselves no better off one year from the last.
There is the hidden burden of violence that not only affects taxpayers but all Americans. Francis Mahaffy raises an interesting issue concerning the connection between socialistic policies (welfare) and violence in society in general. He states, "The causes of violence often lie in the philosophy of compulsion that characterizes all types of socialism. And because socialism invites violence, it flaunts the moral law which restricts the use of force against others to the restraint of evil" (465). In a companion statement concerning taxation he says, "This legal plunder of property by the state is rooted in disrespect for life; for to seize property is to violate the life sustained by that property. Carried to its logical conclusions, the recipient of legal plunder assumes a right to the property and thus to the life of his better situated neighbor. When legal plunder becomes the accepted norm of everyday life, it is little wonder that more naked violence breaks out in our cities. The perpetrators of this violence have been taught through effective propaganda that they have the right to the fruits of the labor of others" (465). I believe there is a correlation. I am old enough to remember life in the very early Sixties and I remember a country where unlocked doors were common and any violent crime a national horror. Today, most people cannot fit enough locks and bars on their homes to guarantee safety and violent crime has become so prevalent it is now just a meaningless statistic. It is a curious fact that welfare programs have kept pace with, or perhaps led, the rise in violent crime. Henry Hazlett reports that in 1961 there were 45 domestic welfare programs in existence and in 1968 there were 1,571; of those, 478 were in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare alone (181). This is 1992. I wonder what the total is now?
There is a burden of conscience also included in welfare programs that generates a moral dilemma for both the recipient and the government. In the report by Earle and Ann Shelby, they describe the following situation, "In Chicago, we talked to a reliefer whose pay with a railroad gang had been $220 a month. When he lost his job, with a wife and 10 children to feed, he received $495 monthly in relief. This sum is now fixed as the family's scale of living. No matter what job the man takes, any wage less than $495 will be supplemented by welfare. Thus ADC becomes essentially a guarantee of annual minimum wage" (444). What a dilemma! With 10 children and a wife, why should a man work and not spend time with his family now that he can, particularly if they are living better than twice as good as before? I can't think of any logical reason. The Shelbys add, "What, then, should we tell employed workers, also with large families, who pay taxes to support their dependent neighbors who are living at a higher level than their own" (444)? I have no answer for them. Life is not fair, but this seems to be a criminal disregard for taxpayers on the part of government.
The Power Base.
Speaking of the government's part in this, the government must bear the vast majority of the blame for this situation. To dispel the myth that government is only responding to public demands in providing all of the social and economic programs in its vast inventory, I offer the following excerpt from Emerson Schmidt's essay "The Public Demands." This comment was made by the secretary of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department in a bitter address before the American Council on Education in October 1961 and printed in the Washington Post, Oct. 6. "In great disgust he cast aside his manuscript and lectured and scolded his audience for not coming to the rescue of educational subsidies via the U.S. Treasury. 'Mail urging Congress to do something for education was infinitesimal. There was a great void, a great silence'" (404). The Department of Agriculture fared no better. Schmidt includes the following tidbit by Ezra Taft Benson, the secretary of Agriculture for 8 years in the 1950's. "I had evidence that an overwhelming majority of the farmers favored programs that would provide them with greater freedom and less government regulation and control . . . I had little pressure from farmers for legislation involving attempts on production control and price fixing " (404). There is no reason to believe that public clamor for welfare programs differ from the foregoing examples at all. Schmidt sums it up rather well in the following quote. "'The public demands more government spending, more programs, and more services . . . ' is widely advanced as the reason for rising taxes, swelling bureaucracy, and the accretion of political power in Washington. 'We must educate the public to demand less . . .' is said to be the remedy.'. . . Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that the general public never makes any demands on the public purse -- with possibly one exception; only under extreme provocation or when the economic position of the public is abruptly and materially altered as in a major disaster or depression" (401). If the public isn't demanding the programs, the government expansion, or the political power they entail, who is?
Who indeed! Perhaps this snippet written by Leonard Read will shed some light on the "who". "Aladdin's jinni performed only on call; it responded to wishes when requested. The modern American version, on the other hand, displays zealous initiative in that it: (1) invents wishes for people; (2) persuades people that these wishes are their own and then actively solicits their gratification; (3) convinces people these wishes are among their natural rights, and (4) casts itself in the role of helper. Mythology in its heyday never came up with a jinni to equal this" (Read 419). If it isn't clear yet, this comment by Lois Sargent should remove all doubt. "As promulgated today, the aspect of security most frequently relates to economic conditions and the psychological effects of financial well-being or want. . . . The power hungry men who wish to build an all powerful government deliberately arouse fear of insecurity and sell their programs under the guise of immutable security" (Sargent 432). If we are surprised that our Congressmen and women are the architects of this national disaster and the massive federal bureaucracy are the builders, then we need to get our heads out of the sand and take a look around. We need to heed the words of Woodrow Wilson, "The history of freedom is the history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it (Speech, New York, Sept. 9, 1912)."
It was nowhere in the minds of our founding fathers to provide public money to those who had not earned it. Many who signed the Declaration of Independence feared just that. Thomas Jefferson warned that this country would remain great only as long as its citizens didn't find their way to the public trough. Sadly, not only have many found their way there, the government, in its desire to expand and control, is actively leading them there and is bent on keeping them there. To expand its power base and control, the government begins conditioning our children at an early age to be dependent on it with free school breakfast and lunch programs. This is followed by tuition aid, federal education grants, and student loans. These last three are very perplexing as many non-governmental scholarships go unused every year. It doesn't appear that government "help" is needed, but it is available with the inherent administrative costs to the American public. It is also disturbing that, only in the last few years, the government began to seriously require the repayment of student loans. This is indicative that the government is not the prudent manager nor fierce guardian of the public trust it would have us believe.
Feeding at the public trough may be somewhat tasty, but it is neither filling nor nourishing, and it totally destroys backbone, pride, and hope. Worse yet, it mistakenly places the act of benevolence on the government and elected officials rather than on the people that provide the gift. This error in perception also fosters a dangerous dependency on and an unhealthy loyalty to those officials in power. This is the reason many congressmen and congresswomen get reelected. To an unbelievably great degree, their continued status is purchased by every taxpayer in this country. Our politicians have discovered that they can buy votes with public money (taxes) through welfare programs.
We are Americans, the richest people on earth, we should be charitable, our government should be benevolent, our less fortunate citizens should be able to share in this great wealth. Should they? Should they really? If you work hard and earn enough money to buy a nice automobile, should you be forced to buy a lesser model due to being forced to donate to a charitable organization you do not subscribe to -- no? If you work hard and buy a house, should you be forced to permit me to live with you because I have no home -- no? If you work hard and earn a wage, should you be forced to give part of it to those who have decided not to work -- no? Irritating thoughts are they not? The irritant is the word forced. Should you have compassion for your fellow man and help him when in need? Yes, most assuredly. Would you help your fellow man when in need? The government obviously doesn't think so and it is not in its best interest for you to think so either, although the money raised by private organizations to support a plethora of worthy causes belies this. Can you tell when a person really needs help or is in a state of need due to an unwillingness to help himself? The government has decided that you cannot be trusted with that determination. Only the government, with its bewildering array of programs, bureaus, departments, and offices knows who needs help, what kind of help they need, and how much help they need--and how much of your earnings you will forfeit to provide that help. This is a far cry from "promote the general welfare" spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution. What our government is promoting is not "the general welfare." What it is promoting is more and bigger and more powerful government at the expense of the freedom and economic survival of us all. I, for one, resent the government for robbing me of the pleasure of being as charitable as I would like to those causes I think worthy and support.
What does this cradle-to-the-grave care provided by government do to the fiber of this country? The effects are slow and insidious. As government has eased its way more and more into the lives of its citizens, there has been a slow, but, steady self-generated demand for more and more government involvement. People are being led to the public trough. When more children mean more money, children appear. When there is no need or responsibility to directly support families, fathers disappear. When children are not properly cared for, the state takes over and mothers disappear. When families disappear, then the whole fiber of this nation strains and breaks. At that point, the government becomes mother and father to us all and we become totally dependent on it -- then freedom disappears. This doesn't happen overnight and it doesn't happen because the American people are stupid or incompetent. It happens because the liberal government publicly shames those who have and seduces those who have not at the expense of the freedom of both. The middle man, the government, is the winner because it gains power and expands. Class envy was not a significant American trait until after the middle of this century. Admiration of, and aspiration to, a particular status was in vogue prior to that.
Inefficiency And Ineptitude.
Government should not be involved with social problems. It may also come as a shock to many that there is no mandate in any of our founding documents that requires the government to resolve social problems. The reason for that is that the government, by its very nature, is not designed or equipped to do that. When it tries, it fails miserably. It has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, over a long period of time, that it cannot effectively and efficiently deal with those issues. We should not require it (and I don't think we do). As a matter of fact, we should insist that government get out and stay out of social issues. If anyone thinks the government can deal with social issues, one look at our nation's Capitol will shatter that thought. Case in point, the Congress of the United States is, by Constitutional mandate, the sole legislative authority for the District of Columbia and, therefore, totally responsible for that district. If the government could resolve social issues, Washington, DC would be more than a pretty facade. The real structure of Washington, D.C. has been the subject of almost continuous newscasts, newspaper articles, and commentary in recent months. The truth is that all types of violent crime are rampant, with the per capita murder rate the highest, in the country. Illegal narcotics are readily available, prostitution flourishes, graft is a matter of public record, housing is poor, and unemployment is high. All this in a 10 mile square area that should be the epitome of what America is. It fills me with shame to think that foreign visitors and dignitaries decide who we are based on their impression of Washington, DC. If the Congress and its massive bureaucracy can't resolve the pressing social issues in a 10 square mile area, how can we expect it to deal with those issues on a national scale? It simply can't.
Another notable example of total government control and its resulting dismal and shameful failure is the treatment of Native Americans. There is not another country or people conquered by American forces in the history of this nation who have suffered as miserably as the American Indian. No other entity in this country has control over Indian affairs except the Federal Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs yet the state of the Indian Nations in many cases approaches that of third world countries. Edna Shaker states, "The 75-year result of all this bureaucratic domination and billions of dollars stands as eloquent testimony of the futility and debility incurred the 'state way'. American Indians have been maintained in a state of shocking poverty, ignorance, disease, and complete dependence. . . . The average life span is 45 years. Infant mortality rates are about three times as high as the average for all Americans. Death rates from preventable diseases such as gastroenteritis, influenza, pneumonia and tuberculosis run up to 8 times higher than the general population. It is clear that the federal government has not even been able to do a minimum job of sustaining health" (436).
Another graphic example of governmental inefficiency and ineptitude was reported by Douglas Kalajian, a staff writer for the Miami Herald. He reports that it takes 12 pages of forms to apply for public assistance in the Miami area. In addition to that, the relief worker must fill out an additional 13 page form that duplicates the majority of the information already provided by the applicant. The welfare recipient must fill out a 4 page form weekly and provide receipts for rent, pay stubs, canceled checks, and other personal documents to remain on relief. This is neither efficient nor effective program management. Being the guardian of the public trust, the government must, as a matter of image, self-interest and self-preservation, take care to ensure the general perception that public funds are used properly. This necessity generates a certain amount of paranoia on the part of the government due to the number of welfare abuse and fraud cases that have become public knowledge. This paranoia generates an inordinate amount of checks and double checks to weed out fraudulent applicants and detect erroneous payments. This checking and double checking requires a disproportionate salaried staff to manage the effort and delays the receipt of services to those with legitimate need. To further add to the administrative burden of the welfare program, the government requires itself to provide welfare applicants with assistance in filling out the forms or filling them out entirely if the applicant cannot. This requires still more salaried staff and administrative expense.
The Result.
By its unbridled benevolence, the government has completely destroyed personal pride, independence, and the work ethic among approximately 4% of the population and has made the majority of the rest of us dependent on government programs in some form or another.(1) Think about it! Where is government not involved in our everyday lives? Where? We have lost our freedom. We have found our way to the public trough. The damage to the 4% is the most sad. They have not only lost their independence and freedom, but also their dreams, and have become resigned to their fate. So much so that welfare families can now be measured in generations. Hand outs have not helped those families and never will.
A giant bureaucracy has grown around social programs and is apparently out of control. Spending for relief programs demand an increasing tax burden on working Americans and jeopardizes their futures. Congress has used our tax dollars to buy power and have become almost permanent representatives with the increasingly higher pay and expanded perks they freely award themselves. This vote buying has become so pernicious that our representatives gladly rape the national defense budget to get even more dollars to ensure their continued status. The price of a failed social program may be serious, but the price of a failed defense is unacceptable and possibly catastrophic.
What To Do.
Reversion to self-reliance is painful, but it is not in the best interest of this country for any American to remain dependent on the government in any way, shape, or form. It is not prudent for any American to encourage Federal programs that foster any dependence of any kind. The situation that exists today is a shame shared equally among the indigent, the government, and ourselves: the indigent for so readily giving up their freedom and taking the easy way out through the pockets of others; the government for failure to learn from history and its own mistakes; and us for letting our elected representatives rob us and virtually enslave our fellow man.
What will happen to the poor, the homeless, the jobless, the children who will go to school hungry? Those are serious and pressing social problems, but they are not governmental problems. They can be solved by other means. Private organizations like World Neighbors and Development and Technological Assistance International have developed very successful methods and programs to deal with similar problems, none of which involve hand outs I might add (Johnson 229; Hall 237). I think we would all be better off if the massive welfare system was dissolved as rapidly as possible over a period of a few years. The benefits would be that: politicians would lose an unhealthy power base and a means of control over the citizens they are supposed to serve; the average citizen would see a dramatic decrease in taxes which will make more money available for adequate future planning and to the economy, and; the indigent will learn self-reliance, one of the cornerstones in the founding of this country. I would much rather see people earning a living and maintaining their pride and self-respect than being dependent on a handout. What a shocking, radical thought! I have heard some say that it is demeaning to require work for public assistance and that it should be free. Really? I don't think so. Nothing is free, not even freedom.
In Conclusion.
Is it too late to turn this problem around? I have my doubts. I have watched in absolute despair as the "throw the rascals out" movement flexed its muscle, yet the vote was to keep my rascal in. It seems as though we think all congressmen are crooks except ours, at least that is what we are told. What I keep hearing is that congressman so and so brought home the bacon to this or that particular state. Bacon being synonymous with lucrative government contracts, new government facilities, federal money for necessary(?) state projects, or programs designed to cure any one of a multitude of real, imagined, or manufactured social problems. It may be too late if we are truly addicted to political pork. That kind of pork clouds the mind, softens the will, and weakens the backbone. Perhaps Nikita Khrushchev was right when he predicted that our grandchildren would live under socialism. Not because of Russian rockets as he promised, but because we American people will eventually choose socialism over the market economy as opined by Dean Russell (173).
Benevolent governments, like benevolent tyrants, have the same ends in mind: the control of their citizens and subjects without the messy use of force which ultimately hastens their downfall. I don't know what direction the future of this country will take, but I have developed a jaundiced eye towards big government and government programs. I have decided that any percentage of my wages is too much to pay for charitable programs I do not support and have proven detrimental to this country. I am fearful for the future of this country, my home. I know that, historically, no government has ever been reduced in size except by open rebellion or violent revolution. I also know the American people will stand for only so much and no more.
Yes, I am fearful of the future.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Scattered Debris
I do not understand the denigrating hip-hop culture. If I heard a young man refer to my daughter as a "Ho", even in jest, he would find himself searching for his teeth amid the scattered debris of his ass.
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
Roger Baldwin, ACLU
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” – Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU.
Robots
We have robots that put out fires, disarm bombs, fight wars and travel to the planets where man can't venture, but the media has to put a living idiot with a microphone in his face outside in a cat 5 hurricane to report on it .... and warn people not to go out in it ... duh!
--- William Fortner 2005 ---
--- William Fortner 2005 ---
Ripe For Exploitation
Democrat anti American and anti war rhetoric has extended the Iraq war a full year or more and they will continue to propagandize it and drag it on until America is torn asunder and laid bare for exploitation by our enemy.
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
--- William Fortner 2007 ---
Respect
Those who stridently demand tolerance and respect for themselves are the least willing to grant the same to others in return.
--- William Fortner 2005 ---
--- William Fortner 2005 ---
Retirement Speech, October 1991
Retirement Speech, October 1991
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, shipmates ….. thank you for coming today.
Thirty years, 1 month and 10 days ago I came into the Navy … naked … in a room full of men. I am delighted to be leaving fully clothed.
In the years that followed that traumatic morning, I traveled to some of the most beautiful and exotic places on earth, met some of the best people in the world, and did some of the most challenging and exciting jobs that exist in the universe … all at government expense. I am deeply grateful to the American Taxpayers who made it all possible.
I have enjoyed a tremendous amount of success in that 30 years, but, for that, I can take little credit. That credit goes to those people that taught me, encouraged me, and led me. To them I am deeply indebted. I was forever surrounded by better men than I that spurred me on and caused me to be much, much more than I ever thought I could be. It was they that taught me what was important, to fight for what I believed in, and to leave a place better than I found it. Somewhere along the line, they instilled an outrageous sense of humor in me.
I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been part of the Navy’s Mine Warfare elite. In fact, it was many years before I realized that there was more to the Navy than Mine Warfare. I used to think the first verse in Genesis read, “In the beginning, God created the Mine Force … and advanced Freddy Reid to E-9. And God looked down upon the Mine Force and said “This is good … I will create a Navy to support it.”. Master Chief Reid told me that himself … I was a seaman … I believed him.
I came into the Mine Force at a most exciting time. As I recall, the authorities were still looking for the 5 sailors that pushed the engineers off, hijacked a train, and ran it full speed from Tokyo to Yokosuka. I heard tell that it was the only way these sailors could get back to the base before midnight when liberty expired. Since Japanese trains depend on a rigid schedule to prevent collisions, this caused considerable anguish among the Japanese railroad people. As a result, massive amounts of Shore Patrol, Military Police, and Japanese constabulary were waiting in the station at Yokosuka to capture these bold adventurers. However, God, in His infinite wisdom, caused these sailors to slow the train in Yokohama and get off while allowing the train to continue into Yokosuka at a more leisurely pace. He also provided the taxi that transported the sailors to Naval Base Yokosuka with 10 minutes to spare.
…. Faces in the audience…stories
There are many, many more stories that I have learned and lived. I fully expect to be enthralling my grandchildren well into the next century.
…PRESENT THE GRAY EAGLE TO WILL DIXON…
“Will, you have been a good friend and shipmate. I respect and admire you.”
I thank the people that put this ceremony together. I know how much effort goes into it. I appreciate it.
I want to thank my mother for letting me join the Navy when I was still 17. It was a wise decision. It is because of my mother that I am to begin college this November. She assured me that she would never rest until I had a degree. This, of course, puts me in an uncomfortable position. Should I permit my mother to live forever in a state of unhappiness or should I kill her with an education.
Finally, I want to thank my wife, Dolores, for sticking with me and playing second to a most demanding mistress. I don’t think I could have picked a better helpmate. I am a better man for having been with you.
I leave the Navy today terribly worried and concerned. At the last census, there were 250 million civilians in this country and there doesn’t appear to be anyone in charge. No wonder they all dress funny.
I said that if this lasted longer than 30 minutes, I’d have to get up and leave. It’s pushing that now.
Thank you very much.
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, shipmates ….. thank you for coming today.
Thirty years, 1 month and 10 days ago I came into the Navy … naked … in a room full of men. I am delighted to be leaving fully clothed.
In the years that followed that traumatic morning, I traveled to some of the most beautiful and exotic places on earth, met some of the best people in the world, and did some of the most challenging and exciting jobs that exist in the universe … all at government expense. I am deeply grateful to the American Taxpayers who made it all possible.
I have enjoyed a tremendous amount of success in that 30 years, but, for that, I can take little credit. That credit goes to those people that taught me, encouraged me, and led me. To them I am deeply indebted. I was forever surrounded by better men than I that spurred me on and caused me to be much, much more than I ever thought I could be. It was they that taught me what was important, to fight for what I believed in, and to leave a place better than I found it. Somewhere along the line, they instilled an outrageous sense of humor in me.
I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been part of the Navy’s Mine Warfare elite. In fact, it was many years before I realized that there was more to the Navy than Mine Warfare. I used to think the first verse in Genesis read, “In the beginning, God created the Mine Force … and advanced Freddy Reid to E-9. And God looked down upon the Mine Force and said “This is good … I will create a Navy to support it.”. Master Chief Reid told me that himself … I was a seaman … I believed him.
I came into the Mine Force at a most exciting time. As I recall, the authorities were still looking for the 5 sailors that pushed the engineers off, hijacked a train, and ran it full speed from Tokyo to Yokosuka. I heard tell that it was the only way these sailors could get back to the base before midnight when liberty expired. Since Japanese trains depend on a rigid schedule to prevent collisions, this caused considerable anguish among the Japanese railroad people. As a result, massive amounts of Shore Patrol, Military Police, and Japanese constabulary were waiting in the station at Yokosuka to capture these bold adventurers. However, God, in His infinite wisdom, caused these sailors to slow the train in Yokohama and get off while allowing the train to continue into Yokosuka at a more leisurely pace. He also provided the taxi that transported the sailors to Naval Base Yokosuka with 10 minutes to spare.
…. Faces in the audience…stories
There are many, many more stories that I have learned and lived. I fully expect to be enthralling my grandchildren well into the next century.
…PRESENT THE GRAY EAGLE TO WILL DIXON…
“Will, you have been a good friend and shipmate. I respect and admire you.”
I thank the people that put this ceremony together. I know how much effort goes into it. I appreciate it.
I want to thank my mother for letting me join the Navy when I was still 17. It was a wise decision. It is because of my mother that I am to begin college this November. She assured me that she would never rest until I had a degree. This, of course, puts me in an uncomfortable position. Should I permit my mother to live forever in a state of unhappiness or should I kill her with an education.
Finally, I want to thank my wife, Dolores, for sticking with me and playing second to a most demanding mistress. I don’t think I could have picked a better helpmate. I am a better man for having been with you.
I leave the Navy today terribly worried and concerned. At the last census, there were 250 million civilians in this country and there doesn’t appear to be anyone in charge. No wonder they all dress funny.
I said that if this lasted longer than 30 minutes, I’d have to get up and leave. It’s pushing that now.
Thank you very much.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Not Worth The Postage
I was going to send Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid letters and tell them just what I thought of them. Turns out, I don't think enough of them to warrant the postage.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Who Pays?
At one time, and for a long time, the largest slaveholder in Charleston, South Carolina was a freed slave. It did not seem to bother him that his fellow countrymen were enslaved. Now, should blacks who owned slaves pay reparations or is that just the white man's burden? Slavery exists to this very day in Africa. Where is the outrage from America's children of former slaves? There is none. They gain no pity or profit from it.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Repatriation
Having grown weary of the whining, rioting, and discontent by the descendants of former slaves, I stand firmly in favor of reparation .... as long as it includes mandatory repatriation.
--- William Fortner 2001 ---
--- William Fortner 2001 ---
Remember Why
I am astonished at how much useful work I accomplish between the moment I walk into a room and the instant I remember why I really went there.
--- William Fortner 2005 ---
--- William Fortner 2005 ---
Racist Third-world Country
If Americans elect a man a who demonstrably disrespects this country with a wife who apparently hates 80% of the population, Americans will get exactly what they deserve, a racist, third-world country.
---William Fortner 2008---
---William Fortner 2008---
Propensity of a Democracy
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." -- Fisher Ames (speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 15 January 1788) High moral standards are not a hallmark of republics either it seems.
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
--- William Fortner 2008 ---
Governing This Country
Office of the ChairmanMike Duncan, RNC Chairman
310 First Street, SE Washington, DC 20003
25 January 2008
Mr. Chairman,
I have received several RNC verbal and e-mail pleas for monetary support. If the government hadn't taken more than it needed and wasted it on pork, I might have some left over for you. Many Republicans were belly up to the table dishing it out just like the Democrats. The RNC has cried "WOLF" too often while RINOs were in the back room selling the sheep to the pack and the rest of the Republicans were feathering their nests.
The GOP and those leading the Republican Party think people are stupid, but they are not. The party thinks people will hold their noses and vote to keep Hillary out. I am not at all sure about that and wonder how many are going to sit on their wallets and sit out this election since there is no true conservative on the ballot any longer. With the overwhelming majority of Americans against illegal immigration do you think they are going to vote for candidates who can't make up their minds, let alone one that championed letting the little darlings become citizens by paying a fine? And now they suddenly have an epiphany and come to Jesus? What utter and transparent balderdash. Republicans have misread America, but America has not misread them.
Business as usual will make the Republican Party the perennial loser it was before Newt. Until serious and drastic changes are made in the way many Republican senators and representatives do business all my politics will be local. I will fund the ones at home who earn my vote. I will also give Senator Jim Inhofe a nice donation as well as Representative Jeff Flake. They have demonstrated they have MY best interests and the interests of America in mind, not those of the party that cares only about winning with quantity and not quality.
If Republicans were serious about winning this election, Jeff Flake would be put on the Appropriations Committee. You and I both know that won’t happen because Republican senators and representatives have gotten so sorry they rely on pork instead of performance to stay in office. Any politician who needs pork to remain in office cares far more about himself than his constituents and thinks little of their intellect. Perhaps the electorate has become so dumbed down in government schools they can be bought with a bridge or a building with some puffed up, pompous ass’ name on it. America is weakened by the Lords of Lard and their dishonest use of public funds to buy votes. Earmarks must go!
I am 64 years old and a veteran. I have known for decades that many Democrat politicians are crooked, lying, cheating, thieving, self serving, low down scoundrels. I have come to expect that of them and rarely have I been disappointed or surprised, certainly not lately. I did not expect the same from Republicans. I believed Republican politicians ascribed to a higher ethical and moral standard. Though many do, the last 10 years have been a real eye opener and I am ashamed of my party.
Until the GOP gets serious about the conservative ideals of small government, less taxes and NO pork, I suspect the RNC coffers will continue to dwindle. The only noticeable difference between McCain and Hillary is that McCain didn't steal everything not nailed down from the White House, therefore, I see no reason to support the RNC or the DNC. At least Hillary may bring the silver back. I believe the media has already elected her anyway. I am just waiting to see how they pull it off. I may be wrong, but the rhetoric sounds to me like McCain is running for VP on Hillary’s ticket.
Those who govern this country should be able to live up to the standards of the Boy Scouts of America. In case you have forgotten: A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. If we expect this of our youth and our fighting men and women, why, pray tell, can't Republicans live up to this simple standard and set the example in public office? If that is too much to ask, then governing this country is not for you.
Unhappily yours,
William Fortner
310 First Street, SE Washington, DC 20003
25 January 2008
Mr. Chairman,
I have received several RNC verbal and e-mail pleas for monetary support. If the government hadn't taken more than it needed and wasted it on pork, I might have some left over for you. Many Republicans were belly up to the table dishing it out just like the Democrats. The RNC has cried "WOLF" too often while RINOs were in the back room selling the sheep to the pack and the rest of the Republicans were feathering their nests.
The GOP and those leading the Republican Party think people are stupid, but they are not. The party thinks people will hold their noses and vote to keep Hillary out. I am not at all sure about that and wonder how many are going to sit on their wallets and sit out this election since there is no true conservative on the ballot any longer. With the overwhelming majority of Americans against illegal immigration do you think they are going to vote for candidates who can't make up their minds, let alone one that championed letting the little darlings become citizens by paying a fine? And now they suddenly have an epiphany and come to Jesus? What utter and transparent balderdash. Republicans have misread America, but America has not misread them.
Business as usual will make the Republican Party the perennial loser it was before Newt. Until serious and drastic changes are made in the way many Republican senators and representatives do business all my politics will be local. I will fund the ones at home who earn my vote. I will also give Senator Jim Inhofe a nice donation as well as Representative Jeff Flake. They have demonstrated they have MY best interests and the interests of America in mind, not those of the party that cares only about winning with quantity and not quality.
If Republicans were serious about winning this election, Jeff Flake would be put on the Appropriations Committee. You and I both know that won’t happen because Republican senators and representatives have gotten so sorry they rely on pork instead of performance to stay in office. Any politician who needs pork to remain in office cares far more about himself than his constituents and thinks little of their intellect. Perhaps the electorate has become so dumbed down in government schools they can be bought with a bridge or a building with some puffed up, pompous ass’ name on it. America is weakened by the Lords of Lard and their dishonest use of public funds to buy votes. Earmarks must go!
I am 64 years old and a veteran. I have known for decades that many Democrat politicians are crooked, lying, cheating, thieving, self serving, low down scoundrels. I have come to expect that of them and rarely have I been disappointed or surprised, certainly not lately. I did not expect the same from Republicans. I believed Republican politicians ascribed to a higher ethical and moral standard. Though many do, the last 10 years have been a real eye opener and I am ashamed of my party.
Until the GOP gets serious about the conservative ideals of small government, less taxes and NO pork, I suspect the RNC coffers will continue to dwindle. The only noticeable difference between McCain and Hillary is that McCain didn't steal everything not nailed down from the White House, therefore, I see no reason to support the RNC or the DNC. At least Hillary may bring the silver back. I believe the media has already elected her anyway. I am just waiting to see how they pull it off. I may be wrong, but the rhetoric sounds to me like McCain is running for VP on Hillary’s ticket.
Those who govern this country should be able to live up to the standards of the Boy Scouts of America. In case you have forgotten: A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. If we expect this of our youth and our fighting men and women, why, pray tell, can't Republicans live up to this simple standard and set the example in public office? If that is too much to ask, then governing this country is not for you.
Unhappily yours,
William Fortner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
