Thursday, April 12, 2012


That is the ultimate difference between conservatives and liberals. 

Conservatives understand that the role of a moral government is to protect the rights of the individual citizens, not provide them goodies. The liberal believes that providing goodies IS the moral imperative of government, no matter how much freedom is sacrificed. And we are being asked to make the final decision on this election.
"Just as the left thought the regulating reach of the Commerce Clause was beyond serious challenge, it long ago decided that none dare question the moral case for public spending. That social Darwinism speech Barack Obama is giving now in defense of federal programs isn't merely a public-policy statement. It's a Democratic encyclical. Paul Ryan's ideas are worse than wrong. They are heresy.
 What Mr. Ryan actually said is worth quoting, because it should revive the debate over the proper relationship between individual citizens, including the poor, and the national government..."
This is a debate that should not be avoided.  It must be fought.  If we lose it, we lose our freedom.  
 "The American left thinks this debate is settled. So, for example, any hint of Supreme Court dissent from settled doctrine justifies questions about its "legitimacy."
Paul Ryan insists the debate isn't over and that its locus is the federal budget, which isn't just numbers. The budget is the national government's formal justification for the scale of the demands it makes now and unto eternity on the nation's citizens."

No comments:

Post a Comment