Back to Quack Off
Idaho are good but earmarks for Alaska are bad, says Idaho Statesman
“We find Bush's reform rhetoric
the vetoing of Congressional pork barrel "earmarks"]
unconvincing.” -- Idaho Statesman Op Ed
Really? We find the Idaho Statesman's socialist rhetoric regarding all 50
States robbing each other in a hyper-inflationary game of issuing billions
of non-backed U.S. Pulp Fiction -- the U.S. Dollar -- extremely naive,
disingenuous, and immoral as hell. --
Boise, ID –
"My fellow crooks and special interest group
prostitutes, in order to provide $7.5 million for the 2009 Special Olympics
Circus in Boise, $390,000 for a Boise Detox Center, and $435,000 for a NW
Nazarene Nursing facility, I propose to sneak "earmarks" into the Defense
Appropriations Bill in the dead of night for the great, wonderful state of
screams the Idaho Statesman newspaper. Idaho earmarks are good.
"My fellow crooks and special interest group
prostitutes, in order to provide $50 million for the Bridge to Nowhere, I
propose to sneak "earmarks" into the Defense Appropriations Bill in the dead
of night for the great, wonderful state of Alaska."
screams the Idaho Statesman newspaper. Alaska earmarks are bad.
the definition of a “good” earmark vs. a "bad" earmark? Isn’t robbery by
proxy (earmarks by the U.S. Congress) simply robbery, no matter which state
is robbing all the other 50 states?
Bush, in his State of the Union address, said he would veto any legislation
containing earmarks that lands on his desk. The Statesman editors went
Bush’s threat to veto earmarks, the Statesman said:
“We find Bush's reform rhetoric unconvincing”
and went on to write an 800 word Op Ed about it.
but it’s so petty why did the Statesman get so pushed out of shape about
it? Everybody knows that President Bush hasn't vetoed ANY Bill that crossed
his desk during his first seven years in office. Why does the Statesman
care about what he says now -- especially since it's all probably a lie
understand, you must put on your left Liberal socialist hat…
the Idaho Statesman went berzerkaroonie at Bush’s veto threat is because he
might actually veto the Statesman’s favorite earmark robberies for their
local pet projects. They are afraid he might really do it. They needed to
issue a denial of Bush’s denial. The editors wanted to convince their
readers that some earmarks – the ones for Idaho, or the ones they happen to
agree with -- are OK but other earmarks are NOT OK.
Statesman wants to convince you, the Reader, of the wider philosophical
concept that some robberies, such as earmarks, are OK, and second, they want
to accomplish what Ayn Rand referred to as: Obtaining The Sanction of Their
Victims. That victim, dear Reader, is YOU, and the philosophy they are
using is called altruistic state collectivism.
essence, the Statesman is claiming that the
ends justify the means – that is, robbery is OK if the ends are
altruistic self-sacrifice of the individual to the collective: i.e., your
tax money for the group, the collective, the Borg, the state, the poor, the
children, the old, the crippled, the sick, the wheel chairs, the
handicapped, and whatever other need-based group or collective the Statesman
can dream up. Then, the method for collection is to brainwash you into
feeling guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of having more than somebody else.
Guilty of having anything. Guilty for succeeding. Guilty for existing.
Guilty for working hard and legitimately earning the fruits of your labor.
If you accept the guilt, they win by default, YOUR default. They win by
obtaining the sanction of the victim, YOU.
is the dirty little secret that all left Liberal state collectivists always
try to use – whether they consciously know it or not -- to usher in their
Sugar Plum Fairy Visions of the Great Welfare State: infringe upon
individual rights (i.e., pretend that earmarks are not robbery), the ends
justify the means, convince you of your guilt if you don't sacrifice
yourself, or your rights, to the collective, and thus obtain the
philosophical sanction of the victim to voluntarily go along with the
robbery. In this case, the robbery is Congressional earmarks and the
philosophy is self-sacrifice of the individual and the free market to the
collective state. (In the old days, it was self-sacrifice of the individual
to the collective church, now it’s the collective state; same philosophy,
no excuse for the Statesman’s position. Even a fool knows that the hundreds
of billions of dollars in Congressional earmarks is deficit spending and
somebody must pay for it. Earmarks constitute a huge debt. There is no
such thing as a free lunch and the Idaho Statesman editors know it. They
also know that all 50 states robbing each other is simply a game of
Reciprocal Rip-Off and, in the end, it is inflationary and will destroy the
economy. Earmarks are simply an end run around the U.S. Constitution that
forbids states to print up their own money, an end run to let the federal
government pay – with inflated, non-backed Federal Reserve Notes -- for
local government projects that the states should not be attempting to fund
in the first place.
the Statesman may find Bush's remarks about vetoing earmarks "unconvincing,"
we find the Idaho Statesman's socialist
rhetoric regarding all 50 States robbing each other in a hyper-inflationary
game of issuing billions of non-backed U.S. Pulp Fiction -- the U.S. Dollar
-- extremely naive, disingenuous, and immoral as hell.
addition, it appears that the Statesman has tacitly adopted the concept that
the more people who participate in a crime, Democratic Majority Pilfer, the
less of a crime it becomes. And its corollary: the further removed the
recipients of the stolen goods are from the robbery, the less guilty the
recipients are for receiving the booty. Sounds like the guidelines for
Pirates of the Caribbean.
philosophical crime here is due to a lack of individual rights education on
the part of the editors at the Statesman, their apparent disdain for
inherent individual rights and freedoms to freely give or exchange, as
opposed to the twisted logic behind the alleged “rights of recipients” to
upon altruistic “need.” The economic crime is due to a lack of basic
monetary understanding: i.e., from where does the U.S. Dollar obtain its
real value? Hint: not from the Federal Reserve and not by growing on
cherry trees in Washington, DC.
next week when the Idaho Statesman protests President Bush's
threat to thwart Goldilocks and the Three Bears' Big Plan to enrich the
nation with Free Federal Porridge. -- FM Duck
back to top...