Last April, I posted a piece about Anti-Federalist 2: "We Have Been Told of Phantoms".

Interestingly enough, it applies to Obamacare in a SERIOUS fashion.

Time for everyone to read it again.

RWR

ADDRESSEE SELECTED TO REPRESENT STATE INDICATED IN NATIONWIDE BALLOT ON NEW GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES.

This was printed on the envelope that I received in the mail today. No return address. No indication of who had sent it. So I open the damned thing, and it's from the Heritage Foundation.

2009 TAXPAYER BALLOT ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

I started to go ahead with it, but things got weird, so instead, I decided to bring it here for a Fisk job.

2009 TAXPAYER BALLOT ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
1. According to The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, annual federal spending has more than tripled since 1965 and has nearly doubled since 1980. In general, do you think that the federal government is spending too much money?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Ummm ... yes?

What the fuck do they think we're going to say to this? Even most Donks will tell you there's too much spending. Their beef is with the kind of spending that's necessary to support the Constitution. If they could cut out the important stuff, they'd do it in a heartbeat, and only spend money on their stupid socialist ponzi schemes. In the meantime, even they say there's too much spending.

2. Are you concerned that unchecked spending is getting worse now that liberals like Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are in power?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Sure do.

However, it is undeniable that the likes of other liberals like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush paved the way for it to happen with their own out-of-control spending. At what point do we face the fact that there is no major party that represents our interests and move on? Republicans cannot be trusted to do any better, as they are as much a part of the conspiracy to wrest the people's power from them.

3. The number of pork projects in the federal budget skyrocketed from under 1,600 in 1997 to more than 11,000 in 2008. Cost to taxpayers: $17 billion in 2008. So far this year Congress has approved more than 8,500 earmarks - everything from a tattoo removal program to "grape genetics" - that cost taxpayers $7.7 billion. Does this level of pork-barrel spending meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
YES NO UNDECIDED

The number in 1997 was unacceptable. Nobody is saying that these earmarks are good, but what exactly does anyone suggest we do about it? Elect Republicans? Please.

4. Thanks to pork projects and Big Government budgets, the federal government will spend more than $25,000 per household this year - up more than $4,000 since 2001. Does this level of spending meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Umm ... no.

5. To finance their spending hikes, Congress is piling up enormous deficits. The federal government is already facing a $1.8 trillion budget deficit this year. Do you believe such a large deficit is fiscally responsible?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Umm ... The government running ANY deficit in peacetime is fiscally irresponsible, and there is probably more than enough money available at this point to support any wartime efforts at this point if you take out all the shit that the government should be divested of.

The next question nearly made me shit my pants:

6. Are you concerned that this wasteful government spending threatens our ability to reform and modernize truly important programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
YES NO UNDECIDED

TRULY IMPORTANT PROGRAMS SUCH AS SOCIALIST SECURITY AND MEDISCARE?!?!?!?!?!

You have got to be fucking kidding me. The Heritage Foundation just called Socialist Security and Medicare "truly important programs" that should be "reformed" and "modernized". I went back and read that again at least a half a dozen times. Yes, the paper does say "The Heritage Foundation" at the top, and yes, question #6 reads exactly as I quoted it.

For this, The Heritage Foundation will no longer be listed in the RWRepublic Links section. I will also be removing myself from all of their email lists. Heritage will never see a dime from my bank account, and will be treated from this point forward as the liberal Republican front organization they truly are.

This question shows that Heritage isn't really conservative after all, and reminds us that no matter how well someone presents himself or herself, whether as an individual or an organization, no one should be above scrutiny. Never assume conservative or liberal based on what you heard in the media or on some blog.

Of course, the only reform and modernization of Socialist Security and MediScare we need is to simply pass the job on to the private sector and the States and get the federal government out of it entirely. That is the ONLY conservative solution to the problems these programs have caused and the only one that is, for that matter, legal.

Rather than waste time with 7, 8, and 9, they were all fair questions to which conservatives would agree.

10. The Heritage foundation is working with members of Congress and in the news media to highlight specific proposals for stopping the waste of your tax dollars, and to target specific pork projects that should be eliminated. Do you support this constructive approach to curbing government waste and abuse?
YES NO UNDECIDED

Not really. If you are going to target only certain "pork projects" for elimination and keep others, such as Socialist Security and MediScare, you're barking up the wrong tree. What needs to happen is to bring in REAL conservatives who will eliminate pork and illegal government as systematically as they were created. That's not going to happen with the current crop of representatives or the media. The only way that happens is by supporting and electing people who will get the job done instead of these idiot Republicans and Democrats.

11. Heritage is educating Congress on the need to end taxpayer-funded corporate welfare that subsidizes CEOs and lorge corporations at the expense of families, seniors, and workers. Eliminating corporate welfare would save taxpayers some $60 billion each year. Does this plan meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
YES NO UNDECIDED

No.

This plan meets my definition of exploiting class envy. If you're going to do away with corporate welfare, why not do away with all the other illegal forms of welfare the US government engages in? You know what I mean. The ones that subsidize "families, seniors, and workers". The cold hard truth is that they are just as wrong and just as illegal as any kind of corporate welfare you can point to.

More proof that Heritage is in bed with the liberals in Washington.

12. Heritage is alerting Congress to the costly repetition in the federal budget, which features 342 separate economic development programs, 130 programs serving the disabled and 130 programs targeting at-risk youth. The Heritage plan to consolidate these programs would save taxpayers billions and do a better job of solving the problems these programs are supposed to address. Does such a plan meet your definition of fiscal responsibility?
YES NO UNDECIDED

No.

It meets my definition of kissing liberal ass. Not a single program mentioned above is legal under the Constitution, and yet Heritage seeks to "consolidate" them instead of doing the right thing, which is to pass these ideas on to the private sector and the States, where a much better job would be done and the law would be followed.

With the Obama/Pelosi liberals now in control of Washington, The Heritage Foundation is unleashing a bold new campaign to expose and eliminate wasteful spending and trim the fat from the federal budget. This effort to rein in unchecked government spending and protect YOUR tax dollars depends entirely on the backing of grassroots taxpayers like you. Will you support this effort with a generous contribution today?

YES. I want to help Heritage fight for my interests as a taxpayer and STOP the epidemic of skyrocketing government spending. I'm enclosing:

$15 $25 $50 $100 $250 $500 Other $_____

Of course, nothing I contribute will be used to support real conservative candidates or the elimination of pork projects that Heritage thinks are ok (and these are some of the worst).

How about ...

No. I'm not sending you people a fucking dime, and you can take me off of your mailing lists as well. Heritage has now proven itself a front for the Republican Party instead of the conservative organization it has pretended to be.

"Important" programs like Socialist Security and Welfare? Eliminating corporate welfare without doing the same for other damaging forms of welfare? The Nazis supported something similar, in case you don't remember. Do we really want to be like them in this regard, especially where government dependency is concerned, and where our own law doesn't allow it?

When Heritage stands up to support the Constitution, we will talk.

RWR

Much has been made by the Obama Administration about Sonia Sotomayor being the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice (assuming her confirmation).

Just to correct the record, she may be the first Hispanic WOMAN on the Supreme Court, but she definitely WILL NOT be the first Hispanic.

I introduce to you the first Hispanic American to serve on the US Supreme Court, Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, who served on the US Supreme Court from 1932-1938.

Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo
1870-1938

No word on why BO and his gang overlooked this important individual. Might have something to do with his also being a JOOOOOOOOO, but I won't level that accusation just yet. It's probably just the typical liberal omission of convenience.

RWR

Michelle Malkin linked a great video from Project Shining City this weekend. I just started perusing their site, but it really looks good so far.

RWR

I found this handwritten post in a notebook today. Its date of origin is sometime in November of 2007.

What could possibly be wrong with socialism? After all, its purpose is ostensibly to bring comfort to the poor and downtrodden people of the world, placing all people at the same level of economic and social status. Its purpose is to eliminate social and economic class by equalizing the social and economic outcomes for all. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Of course, the answer is simple. Socialism offers no reward for the hard work it takes to discover the best way to do something. There is no economic or social reward for success at anything other than mediocrity. If socialism is such a wonderful idea, so much better than American freedom and capitalism, then where is the great socialist success story in the world, where everyone is rich, and prosperity greater than any capitalist's dream is the order of the day?

Socialism discourages hard work and competition. After all, if Jerry makes as much money or more on the dole than Tommy, even though Tommy works sixty hours a week, then why should either of them work? In this way, socialism ultimately breeds laziness and the mentality that everything should be provided for you instead of you having to make the right choices and earn what you have.

Over the last one hundred or so years, socialists in America have convinced all but the most conservative Americans (who used to cherish their freedom) that it's quite all right for other people to be forced to pay for their halthcare (MediScare), their retirement (Socialist Security), their kids' education (NCLB), their medicine, their food, their housing, their disaster recovery, and a plethora of other things, all in the name of good intentions.

It's become so convoluted that now we don't even hear debate about whether or not there should be socialism in America, but rather how much. Do we really want to live like Cubans, Chinese, or Ethiopians, and ultimately see our economy collapse under socialism like the Soviet Union? Why do we keep putting more eggs in this basket that was discarded in America so appropriately nearly four centuries ago?

Of course, the answer is simple. In order to have socialism on any scale grander than a household or two, big government has to get involved. Complain all you want about big business, but the best of big government is far more dangerous than the worst of big business. Government by its very nature is evil, and this has been known since before our Republic was established. Why would anyone consider placing the state of his very health into the hands of such an evil entity?

For average people, victims of the very education system that socialism has given us, there is an excuse - they just don't know. Seriously. Ask them where the US Constitution authorizes this course of action, and if they tell you anything even remotely resembling intelligence, they'll quote you the General Welfare clause from Article I, section 8, even though the public debate that took place a the time the Constitution was written is both available and easily accessible. The result of the debate is also clear: The founders did not intend the General Welfare Clause to indicate that the US government would have the authority to implement something like socialism just because they thought it to somehow "promote the general welfare" of the people (still no word on how taking money from people against their will and giving it to people/entities they themselves would never consider giving it to does anything to promote their welfare).

Furthermore, if the Founders of this great nation saw any merit to socialism, they would surely have made provisions for it in the Constitution. Why didn't they? Well that answer is simple too: they saw it for the bullshit that it is. Look, these guys had carte blanche to set up whatever government they wanted, and all they gave it the authority to do was to secure the people's individual rights to life, liberty, and property. The Bill of Rights was drafted later to set even stricter boundaries that the government couldn't cross. Were they alive today, they'd certainly be disappointed.

Of course, while Joe Public, with his public school education and possibly his liberal college background, simply doesn't know what the Constitution says, those holding public office do know, and know quite well. For them, socialism is a means of acquiring and keeping power for themselves and control over people. Do you really believe Hitlery means well with her Nationalist Socialist healthcare plan when the same has failed so dismally in Europe, Canada, and worst of all, Cuba? What does she really want you to believe she brings to the table that would make Hitlerycare so much better than other socialist attempts at the same thing? Oh, and what will become of it once there's no more Hitlery around, even if it is successful? All it should take for socialism to succeed, the socialists tell us, is the right leaders. I actually had one of them tell me that. What a load of crap.

Why should we work to eliminate a wealthy class of Americans when capitalism (with all its faults) affords plenty of opportunity to not only have a healthy group of wealthy Americans, but also to expand that group through upward mobility? The socialists don't want you to answer that question, because there's no room for it in their worldview. To them, you are born at some level, and that's where you stay. For them, in order for one person to be wealthy, he must somehow oppress a poor person somewhere, or so they'd have you believe. Of course, punishing people for being wealthy through the tax code, as American socialists do, does more to oppress the poor than anything those wealthy people do on their own. It forces them to hold on to their money instead of spending it in a fashion that will help those poor people, particularly those not sucking off the socialists' teat. Even for those on the dole, there isn't much left after the socialists pay themselves. After all, nothing is free. Not even socialism.

And what of the other problems that socialists have tried to use their system to solve? Poverty isn't any better, schools are worse, and elderly people now depend on what we were told was meant to be a mere supplement. What is the socialists' solution to the problems their socialism has created and/or exacerbated? MORE SOCIALISM. Yeah, that'll help ... not.

The real solution is to dismantle socialism completely. Phase it out. It outlived its usefulness the day it was foisted upon us. Do away with that which should never have been started. America - indeed, the world - will be a better place for it.

... And the Founders would be proud.

RWR

PeanutButterPoet
1973-2009

It should not be considered normal around here to include a tribute such as this to a reader, but today a good friend was lost to an untimely passing.

I met PeanutButterPoet (a name that I gave her for her addiction to peanut butter and her wonderful ability to express herself through poetry) in an Internet game room eleven weeks ago this very day. Getting to know her was a wonderful experience, though the story of her life seemed very sad, having lost her husband three years ago in military operations in Iraq, and raising her two sons on her own with the help of family members. There was much about this person to love, from her loyalty and dedication to her family and the rabidly conservative ideals she espoused to her soothing voice and wonderful sense of humor, not to mention an outward beauty that I would only be privileged to know through pictures. When she learned of the RWRepublic, she immediately became a loyal reader, and even left a comment or two.

This spring, she was blessed to have survived a nearly fatal head-on collision with a drunk driver. However, complications from the accident claimed her life during the wee hours last night. She is survived by two sons, ages 14 and 5, as she joins her late husband, our hero, at the Lord's side.

So, tearfully, I bid farewell to one of the best friends the RWRepublic has ever had. I consider myself supremely blessed to have had the opportunity to know this wonderful lady who was taken from us in such an untimely fashion. Our friendship, however brief, will always be among my most cherished experiences. My love and prayers go out to all others whose lives she touched, especially those dependent upon her love for their survival and well-being.

Otherwise, I am completely at a loss for words.

RWR