Governor Rauner Comes To Moweaqua

Here is the News story from WICS News Channel 20 in Springfield, IL

Don't like TEA? Start your own grassroots movement then.

Here is yet another montage of the liberal media picking a theme to parrot. The current theme, in case you missed it: The TEA party are terrorists wanting to blow up the country financially. As if the government has not already. If the current bill passes, the "debt ceiling" (it's hard to call it that without laughing) will increase by $2.1 Trillion, bringing the "ceiling" to $16.4 Trillion. Up from 2001's "ceiling" of $5.96 Trillion. That is an increase of $10.44 Trillion in the last 10 years, $5.08 Trillion in just the last 2 years.

Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg thought it was "laugh out loud" funny that the liberal media will not call actual terrorists - terrorists. However, they will call citizens who are concerned about the direction of the country and the huge expansion of government - terrorists. Well, I do not find it amusing at all. The whiny liberal media has labeled the TEA party every nasty name it can think of, hate-filled, anarchist, tea-baggers, racist old white people, Nazis, Hezbollah, Terrorists and Jimmy Carter. Wait, no that last one is what we are now calling president Obama.

It is true the TEA party did form under the Obama presidency, while the democrats had full control of both houses of congress. However, the undercurrents had begun to flow while George Bush was still president and both parties in Congress were spending like liberals. The TEA party is not anti-government, we simply want a Constitutionally limited government that actually represents the best interests of the people. The government has made it increasingly clear that it is incapable of running anything efficiently. Their anti-Midas touch transforms everything they get their hands on into a huge steaming pile of expensive bureaucratic boondoggle.

I would like to offer a suggestion to liberals and those in the media who are so opposed to the beliefs and actions of what has come to be called the TEA party movement. Create your own movement, make some picket signs and get out into the streets and demand that the government raise your taxes and increase the spending. I will even suggest the name for your movement, the Raise Our Taxes party. The ROT party needs to be made up of normal people angry that they do not pay enough taxes, that the government doesn't spend enough money, that the debt ceiling should be $100 Quadrillion instead of a measly $16.4 Trillion. Here are some picket sign ideas for you: "RAISE MY TAXES!" "TAKE MORE OF MY FREEDOMS!" "GROW THE GOVERNMENT!" "SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!" "MAKE MY BOSS PAY MORE TAXES, SO I GET A PAY CUT!" "GIVE ME MORE REGULATIONS OR GIVE ME DEATH!" "KEEP ME POOR AND DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT!"

I will be watching the 6 o'clock news waiting to see the coverage of all of the ROT party rallies.

Debt Ceiling and Extremists

I would like to take a second to point out a couple of important facts that I do not hear mentioned in the media.

This is not a new emergency. You will notice in the accompanying chart, the debt ceiling was raised 3 times already, just in Obama's first year in office. February 2009 -  February 2010 an increase of $3 Trillion

- Bush took office in Jan 2001 - debt ceiling $5.95 Trillion

- Republicans mostly controlled both houses of congress until 2006 the debt ceiling increased 4 times by a total amount of $3 Trillion. March 2006 - debt ceiling $8.96 Trillion

- Fall of 2006 Democrats win both houses of congress, that means they have the majority in both Senate and House. Until the Republicans won back the House in the fall of 2010. In those 4 years the debt ceiling increased 6 more times for a total amount of $5.34 Trillion. February 2010 - debt ceiling $14.3 Trillion.

What is the point of having a Debt Ceiling if they are just going to raise it every time they have spent so much money that they reach it? What is wrong with expecting the government to actually use the debt ceiling as a ceiling? How much is going to be enough? Why am I and people like me compared to a terrorist organization(Tom Friedman of New York Times compared Tea Party to Hezbollah) or called an extremist(by communist Van Jones) for expecting the government to keep itself in check with tools such as an unmovable debt ceiling. Instead of being run like a bunch of crack addicts who just need one more fix, okay just one more fix, really this time just one more fix, I really mean it this time just one more fix, seriously this time just one more fix...

It took 200 years to get the debt ceiling to $5.95 Trillion. In 2001, why didn't they raise the debt ceiling from $5.95 Trillion to $15 Trillion? Perhaps because that would be way too extreme to pass? Of course, here we are just 10 years later...

Who are the extremists?

NationalJournal.com

MAKE YOUR KIDS PAY - CHANGE?

Suppose you apply to open a credit card account. Magically, the bank issuing said card gives you a credit limit of $250,000 and says you do not need to make any payments, they will put the card in your child's name and when your child is of age, they will be responsible for the debt, the bank will go after them. If you do not have a child, use your imagination, perhaps a niece or nephew. Would you go out and spend a quarter of a million dollars and leave it for your child to pay for, with interest? Why not?

Right, the above situation would be morally and ethically reprehensible. Although, in America it has become common practice among government types. Aside from the Tea Party rallies, there has not really been an outcry.

I believe there are several reasons for this. Many people are just too busy to care. They are busy with the rigors of daily life, and do not have time to be concerned about politics and how those politics will affect their own children and future generations, negatively or otherwise. There are a lot of people who are not well enough informed, therefore when they hear anything that sounds political they tune it out, either because they do not understand or do not believe they can understand. Many people have just grown tired of hearing about politics, they have been worn down and driven to a lack of concern by forces that are very happy that they have tuned out. Finally, there are a number of people that just do not know what to do, they do not know how they can make a difference or affect change, so they also tune out. If you fit into one of these categories, it is very important that you rethink what has brought you to your current state of mind concerning politics. It is time for you to figure out how you can make a change. You do matter, you owe it to your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and future generations to pay attention and affect REAL change.

Believe me, I wish I had an answer for what you can do to make a difference. I feel the same way. I am trying to do my part by putting into words what I see going on, and trying to encourage others to open their eyes to the political landscape and the path down which America is now traveling. Here in Illinois, conservatives believe that liberals in Chicago decide who our politicians are, therefore they are correct. However, I believe that there are enough liberty loving people in down state Illinois, that if people would stop saying "We Can't" and would get out there and support politicians that believe as we do, "We Could"!

I know one thing for sure, spending will never lower debt. Whether it is you spending your hard earned money or your mooching Uncle Sam recklessly spending YOUR hard earned money, the end result of overspending is the same.

New Deal for Druggies

The Obama administration with their handling of the economy has inspired an idea for a radical new treatment for drug addicts.

Typically, treatment involves trying to get drug addicts to stop using drugs, which, if you have known a drug addict, is no easy task and seemingly impossible. Granted, some drug addicts do stop using, but there are far more examples of those who do not stop or only stop temporarily.

What if, instead of trying to get the drug addict to stop using, you increase their use? Give them as much drugs as they want as often as they want, and if they are not using enough fast enough, force more on them. What will be the end result? Most likely they are going to overdose and/or their heart is going to stop. Problem solved.

Obama has shown us how to get a drug addict to stop using, with his example of how to fix an economy where government spending is out of control and debt and deficits are past the point of no return. What will be the end result? Problem solved.

Blessed are the poor...

The liberals lately are pulling out every "reverend" they can find to refute Glenn Beck's rendering of the goals of "social justice." They are accusing Glenn of hating Jesus, attacking churches and various "reverends." I do not not need to defend Glenn Beck, he is a big boy and can take care of himself. (No pun intended there Glenn.) I just find it interesting to see liberals that normally mock Christians and show contempt for religion so interested in "defending" Jesus from the likes of Glenn Beck.

Barack Obama has been very open with the fact that he wants to redistribute wealth. He believes in the redistribution of wealth in the name of "social justice." He believes the wealthy in America have built their fortunes on the backs of the poor. He also believes that America has built its wealth on the backs or poorer nations. I believe that the wealthy have taken advantage, not of the poor, but of the freedom afforded to us by this great nation and it's constitution. Everyone in America has the opportunity to be whatever they want to be. If you do not take advantage of the opportunities afforded you, then that is your fault, not the fault of anyone else.
The wealthy in America have not taken advantage of the poor, but have created opportunities for them. If you cannot keep a job because you are high all the time, and therefore cannot feed and house your family, what is the solution? A conservative would say the solution is to buckle down, put down the pot, get and keep a job and take care of your family. A liberal solution would be, keep smoking the pot, we will take money from people who do not smoke pot and do work and will give you food stamps, medicaid and a housing allowance. Is that social justice? For who?
Think that example is far fetched? I could give several specific examples, but I will not.

So back to the Bible, Jesus and social justice. In the 2nd book of Matthew, Jesus said, "Verily, Verily I say unto thee government, take money from the wealthy and distribute it to the poor." If you believe that, shame on you for not knowing there is not a 2nd book of Matthew. Jesus said things like, " ²⁰Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. ²¹Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied." That's in Luke 6, you will notice there is nothing about redistribution. What else did He say about the poor? Also in Luke 14: ¹²Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. ¹³But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, ¹⁴and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." How many Presidential banquets or balls have you seen poor, crippled, lame and blind at? Is Obama really interested in taking care of the poor as Jesus said? Another verse from Luke 18: ²²When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." There, finally, is some redistribution of wealth, but wait, what did he say? Sell everything you have and give to the poor and come follow him? So if you sell everything you have and give it away, wouldn't that make you poor? Perhaps Mr. Obama would like to lead by example? Of course, Jesus knew the man would not sell everything he had and give it to the poor and follow him, because he knew what was in the man's heart. Jesus wants our charity to be from our hearts, not because of a government mandate. Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 3: "We were not idle when we were with you, ⁸nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. ⁹We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. ¹⁰For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." ¹¹We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. ¹²Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat." That seems kind of contrary to the gospel according to Obama. Liberal charity is based on selfishness and greed, they want everyone else to be charitable for them. Charity comes from the heart, not from the end of a barrel of a gun. Charity can not be forced, that is not charity.

Finally, we find in James 1: ²⁷Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. If you consider yourself religious, here is the guide to follow, no government mandated "social justice" needed, simply take care of orphans and widows in their distress and keep yourself from being polluted by the world.

...with Liberty and social Justice for all?

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and social justice for all? Wait, that's not right. That would never be acceptable to the leftist radicals who are attempting to "fundamentally transform" our nation, the phrase "one Nation under God" would definitely have to be removed. What? Oh, that is not the problem? Oh....okay, and social justice for all, that is where the mistake is. It seems these days you do not hear the word "justice" used in Washington D.C. unless it has a "social" in front of it. For those of you who probably have an idea what it means but are not completely sure, Wikipedia says of social justice: "The term "social justice" is often employed by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome." Justice is the quality of being righteous or fair.

Compassion is a quality that most of us possess, generally in differing quantities. It is understandable how some believe that it is "just" for a government to take money from those who have a lot of money and distribute it to those who do not have a lot of money. What kind of greedy, compassion-less and selfish person would dare disagree with that? Well, actually, I do. The problem is, how do they decide the amount to take from the individual with money? At what point is the tax percentage fair? 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? Also, how do we decide who is worthy to be the recipient of the redistribution? Do we redistribute based on race, as a form of reparations? Can you achieve Justice by being unjust to one group to satisfy another? Is that not contradictory? How many generations have to pass before we can stop blaming our shortcomings on our history?

As an example, I present to you Bill and Ted. Bill and Ted grew up next to each other in a lower income neighborhood, a ghetto or trailer park, I will let you choose the demographics. Bill stays in school and graduates, proceeds to college, graduates and gets a very good paying job, works hard and makes a nice life for himself after lifting himself up and out of poverty. Ted on the other hand, enjoys hanging with his friends(or gang), smoking pot, drops out of school, is in and out of prison, lives on welfare as his single mother unwittingly taught him, and fathers several illegitimate children to complete the poverty cycle that has been created by our government programs. Bill, through determination and hard work broke that cycle, as many people in our society have actually done. Bill, is a shining example of what can happen in a Free Market or Capitalist system. Ted is a glaring example of the fruits of "Social Justice," which the Obama administration is in the process of expanding with legislation such as the "stimulus" program, cap and trade, and health care reform. Is the government, by taking money from Bill to give to Ted, promoting justice? Really? Perhaps that should be the new curriculum for schools, stay in school, work hard, and get ahead so the government can take your money and give it to lazy people. Perhaps someone could put that on a teleprompter and President Obama could deliver it to school children.

Now, Barack Obama and his "advisers/Czars" believe strongly in "social justice." Therefore, Bill, who has lifted himself from poverty and is now wealthy, has a responsibility to pay more taxes to support Ted, who spends every dime he gets on dime bags and continues to father illegitimate children and expand the welfare rolls. What is "just" about this scenario? Not every wealthy person is born with a silver spoon in their mouth, but even if they are, someone in their family worked hard and made that fortune. The Obama administration believes that the wealthy built their fortunes on the backs of the poor, therefore they "owe" the poor. I believe that America is a land of opportunity, where if one has the ambition and puts forth the effort, they can do anything and should not be penalized for it and forced to support those who are unwilling to put forth any effort. We will always have the poor among us, many people are content to put forth little effort and live off of table scraps. If my hard work ever pays off, I will refuse to feel guilty about what I have worked so hard for. I would rather "go Galt" than to have the fruits of my labor stolen by an opressive Socialist Regime, especially in a Country that was once known for freedom and personal responsibility.