Response to Anti-Tea Party Propaganda: part 3, Social Security

Since our Local New York Times Editorialist makes further arguments about Social Security, I thought I'd briefly interact with them here. He wrote,

Republicans are reminding us that Social Security and Medicare, for example, were huge mistakes. They represent socialism and shouldn't have been created in the first place.

Notice the arrogance. He just assumes that anyone who would go against Social Security must be nuts. He offers no Constitutional argument for them. He also assumes they are right and good and that's that.

The truth is, to the Republican, they represent more than just some social engineering. They represent statism. We all know that Social Security was invented by Big Government people in order to enslave a permanent voting block. The idea of Liberty is at stake. Simply because Mr. Haxton refuses to understand the basics of a government that stands for Liberty because he sees what he thinks is injustice is not an argument. Extorting money from one human being and giving it to another because it makes you feel better is not an argument.

Haxton then argues that Republicans are hypocrites in a following paragraph.

Fair enough [that Social Security should not have been created]. How many Republicans are willing to give up their Social Security checks and Medicare assistance since it's not in the Constitution? Come on folks, don't be shy.

This is an argument? Notice the typical emotive based argument. Nothing of substance at all can be found here. He simply mocks and marginalizes his political opponent into shame.

The fact is, I have been paying in to the Social Security pyramid scheme by the force of Left-wing politics. Perhaps he would be willing to pay me back for all of the money I have lost? The fact is, Bush Jr. did try to offer that option, and YES! I would have taken it! I would get more money if Leftists would quit stealing my money and giving it to someone else in a scheme that is illegal in any other sphere of life other than government.

But Mr. Haxton doesn't stop there. He keeps going on the same old tired out argument that Republicans and "Teabaggers" want to take away your Social Security or raise the age limit.

Face it, old people and those who didn't save enough during their working years are only a drain on society. If you haven't saved enough to retire at 60, tough break. There's nothing that says you can't be a crane operator until you're 70- or 75-years-old.

First, I reject the arrogant premise that he just assumes is legitimate. He assumes it is the role of the Federal government to make certain you have a retirement. What did people do for the first 150 years of this Republic without his precious Social Security? So again, no argument to justify his position. Just more marginalizing the political opponent [are you seeing why he is our Local New York Times Editor?].

Second, Teabaggers are not the only ones who see that if we do not do something, Democrats are going to have to raise the age limit or confiscate more of our money. The Huffington Post in June tried to make John Beoner the bad guy for suggesting that the age limit be raised. However, if you bother to read the last lines of the article, you will see House Majority Leader also says the same thing.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has suggested similar solutions for extending the solvency of Social Security. During a speech at a Third Way event on June 22, 2010, Hoyer said:

"On the spending side, we could and should consider a higher retirement age, or one pegged to lifespan; more progressive Social Security and Medicare benefits; and a stronger safety net for the Americans who need it most."

Mr. Haxton needs to get off of his high horse and come back to fiscal reality. Social Security is unConstitutional. I, like many others, would gladly surrender Social Security for a different option that has been blocked by Democrats (Dems refuse to lose their money tree). Social Security is broke and has been for decades. Liberty is at stake. It is time to wake up.

Haxton offers no arguments to support his position. So I firmly stand with the Teabaggers. Thank God for the Tea Party.

Further reading with Walter Williams here.

Response to Anti-Tea Party Propaganda: part 2

Here is the next paragraph of "rhetoric and propaganda" I wanted to tackle.

Oh, to live in a time again when there were no worker safety regulations, when children were allowed to toil away in sweat shops and when minorities, including women, had no equal protection.

Now again, notice that we must accept his false premise that the Federal Government must create bureaucracies in order to put a stop to the evil industrialists. He never attempts to even question the idea that perhaps the Federal government does not have such authority?

Nevertheless, even Ronald Reagan was not against a strong government that could withstand corporations in defense of the "little guy". And being that the Tea Party is made up of a wide variety of people, this charge is just wrong.

The last point is also just rhetoric. What conservative wants to see women being treated in such a way that disrespects the fact they are made in the image of God too? In fact, a large chunk of Tea Party people happen to be...da da dahhhh...women!

Now I want to tackle the children working issue. Notice the description of "sweat shops". This image gives to us the idea of men with whips beating 5 year-old kids to a pulp for not keeping up. However, this propaganda aside, why is the false premise granted that children should not work? Why do we assume that children have a fundamental right to a 12-13 years of public education.

Now I am not arguing against educating our children. I am simply saying that there are other ways of doing things. I was first challenged about how we educate our children by my public school 9th grade English teacher. He was against child labor laws that prevented 12-year-olds from being able to work. He realized that children of that age often do not want to be in school and that they lose the ability to learn work. Another problem is that "children" are forced to go to a school system often not for education, but for indoctrination.

I realize that many would probably respond by arguing that children would be exploited (another emotionally charged term) in order to make some "fat cat" rich. Of course, I guess that means it is ok to exploit 18-year-olds by paying them cheap labor wages. Never mind the fact that there might be a job to be had instead of standing on the "street corner begging". So why is it wrong to hire a 12 year old for cheaper labor? Because someone is getting wealthy, and we just can't have that in America. Yet parents exploit their children all time by getting them to do chores such a mowing the lawn or doing the dishes. Are they paying those high union wages? I doubt it.

Now American parents are seeing no financial benefit in having children. They are a complete expense from day 0 till age 18 and beyond. This is perhaps why a recent article that has shown that parents are not wanting children anymore. Let's face it. In a narcissistic culture, why do we want to spend all of our money and time into a losing financial investment/expense. Mohler cites Jenifer Senior,

Before urbanization, children were viewed as economic assets to their parents. If you had a farm, they toiled alongside you to maintain its upkeep; if you had a family business, the kids helped mind the store. But all of this dramatically changed with the moral and technological revolutions of modernity. As we gained in prosperity, childhood came increasingly to be viewed as a protected, privileged time, and once college degrees became essential to getting ahead, children became not only a great expense but subjects to be sculpted, stimulated, instructed, groomed. (The Princeton sociologist Viviana Zelizer describes this transformation of a child’s value in five ruthless words: “Economically worthless but emotionally priceless.”) Kids, in short, went from being our staffs to being our bosses.

In the majority of world history, children have been seen as not only a blessing from God, but as an inheritance from God. They are to be a source of income, not merely couch potatoes that are stuck in front of a TV or a computer playing video games.

In conclusion, our Local New Times Editorialist simply assumes his worldview as right. Anybody who would dare question it is mean spirited. It is easy to use emotionally charged rhetoric as Mr. Haxton does. It is far more difficult to be a conservative in order to overcome such propaganda.

Response to Anti-Tea Party Propaganda: part 1

Our Local New York Times Editorialist, Rod Haxton, has, surprise surprise, written against the Republicans and the far right cliff hanging Tea Party. I usually just ignore his editorials, but every once in a while, I feel compelled to respond to some of the nonsense. I’d like to point out that overall, the emotionally driven rhetoric and propaganda that he accuses the Tea Party, actually comes from his own finger-tips.

First, he starts off by referring to the Tea Party as being people who are “walking along the cliff’s edge on the far right” who offer “a lot of rhetoric”.

Now perhaps I am in error, but it is my understanding that the Tea Party is made up of people of all stripes, including Democrats. Read here for the LA Times article proving that Tea Party members are also democrats. According to a Gallup poll:

28% independent, 17% Democrat and only 57% Republican

Anecdotally speaking the tea Party people that I personally know are anything but far right wingers. This is yet another example of emotional propaganda arguments the Left uses to marginalize their opponents including the Political Right while acting super intellectual.

Next, he wrote,

“They are essentially wanting to take this country back 100 years- to a time without Social Security or Medicare, without protection for those with disabilities, an era of overt racism, before the existence of labor unions and when the unemployed were left begging on street corners.”

It seems to me that our Local New Times Editorialist wants to take us back to the days of 1775 and King George, and the right for government to tax us in to slavery. But notice he gets to set the table and the Conservative/Tea Partier/whatever, must agree to his rhetoric. So let’s look at each point.

1) If a private citizen were to start a pyramid scheme like social security, he would be arrested. Also, social security is broke! It has been broke for decades. To defend it is insane.

Social Security is unconstitutional. It only became law due to the fact that a President was elected four times and was able to stack the Supreme Court. If that had not happened, it would have been struck down just as the Federal Income Tax Act originally was. The Constitution does not enumerate the power to the Federal Government to tax its citizens into a pyramid scheme that was destined to produce a permanent Democratic voting block.

2) The Americans with Disabilities Act is also unconstitutional. Why should the Federal Government be empowered to attack businesses because they didn’t build a ramp for a person in a wheel chair. It may be a morally right thing to do, but should it be legislated?

Rod should know better. He has had sons with disabilities. Should we raid his small business to be certain it is up to code?

The fact is, the American with Disabilities Act has nothing to do with helping disabled people. It simply uses that rhetoric in order to aquire governmental power over our lives. For example, the Act has had far reaching impact our society. This Washington Post article states,

President Obama's White House adviser on disability policy, said advances in technology make revisiting the law a necessity.

"When ADA was passed in 1990, the Web wasn't what it is now and technology wasn't what it is now," Dale said during an interview on Friday. "The ADA and the law have to pick up with technology."

Dale, who is legally blind, noted that he's unable to type in passwords or use certain authentication software on Web sites. But adding voice-recognition software might help, he said.

So now the Federal Government needs to make certain blind people can get logged on? Perhaps you've seen those ridiculous braille signs placed in the most ridiculous places? Thank the Federal Government for that. Only common everyday people can use everyday common sense.

I wonder. If I went to Rod's office, would his bathroom be up to code? Perhaps his newspaper should be forced to have a braille section too?

3)How in the world can the myth that Tea Party people want to return to days of slavery? This accusation is the worst of Rod's rhetoric. In fact, the anti-slavery movement was long before the Civil War. It was a major issue at the Founding of our government. Is it wrong to return to foundational principles of freedom that paved the way for the Civil Rights movement?

4)How can Republicans stop the forming of unions? Why is government supposed to be buddy buddy with unions? Should not the government represent all voters?

Perhaps Rod's employees would be allowed to form a union?

5)Why is it assumed the Federal Government is to be empowered to make certain no citizen is standing on the corner begging? The Federal Constitution purposely leaves that power to the States. However, an assumption here is that the large soup lines is the fault of Republicans. It was precisely the Democrats and their policies that prolonged the Great Depression in order to create a dependent class of voters. They are known statists.

The idea that Tea Party people want people out of work is nonsense, but it is exactly what Democrats want...dependents forever enslaved to their merciful welfare state.

Conservatives in general and the Tea Party in particular are just people who want to see the Federal Government return to its legitimate role. They know that we can't spend Trillions of dollars and bankrupt our children. This is an issue of Freedom and Liberty. The current direction of the country is threatening the very fabric upon which it was founded. For Rod to liken Tea Party people being back-woods hicks, who use propaganda and rhetoric, is to do the very thing he falsely accuses.