[Louis Foxwell]

So much can be said about this issue. I began a life time of campaigning against welfare in 1965 when I resigned from the Balt Dept of Welfare. In my letter of resignation I said, "Welfare promotes far more dependency than it overcomes." I was nieve and young. (Still am nieve, just not young)The purpose of welfare is to enslave.
Government is a rapacious maw that seeks to devour everything. It must be kept in check or it becomes a destroyer of worlds. We are learning that hard lesson today. Our Founders understood it perfectly.
The King had absolute power and ruled his subjects with an iron fist. So did Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and all the other tin pot dictators who have launched themselves as saviors. They are not. They are demons who destroy.
Then we come to Barack who, by any other name, seeks the absolute destruction of the greatest nation in the history of mankind. His reign of terror proves we are not invincible.
We are not protected by our Constitution or by our institutions. Our only protection is ourselves. We can come together as a band of brothers fighting for the dignity and honor of our independence or we can be herded into cattle cars for a final trip to the camps.
There is no salvation in government. That is the singular message of the Obama presidency. We will learn to throttle government before all is lost or history will remember us as the generation that failed to stand for what its progenitors knew to be true.

[left that other site]

Hits the nail on the Head!

[petercooper]

bttt

[Sherman Logan]

The King had absolute power and ruled his subjects with an iron fist. So did Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and all the other tin pot dictators

I do not disagree. But I would like to point out a crucial difference between traditional Kings and modern dictators.

Most (though not all) kings and emperors down through history were not totalitarians. They generally made little or no attempt to control the lives of their people at the regional or local levels, much less that of the family or individual. Even the most vicious of them generally directly impacted only his court and perhaps the populace of his capital; he just didn't have the mechanisms to push tyranny onto everybody.

IOW, unless you were unlucky enough to come to the king's attention, you were pretty safe. Most "tyranny" by kings arose not from direct meddling law enforcement, but from spendthrift kings trying to refill their coffers by taxation.

Modern dictators use bureaucracy and technology to directly impose their will.

The contrast is between theoretical absolute rule and in practice general loose freedom, and theory and practice of tyranny getting lined up together.

BTW, there are exceptions to the above in history, but they're pretty unusual.

[Aevery_Freeman]

If forced to chose between rule by a monarch or rule by a mob, I would choose the former as there is at least a chance of a benign monarch - no mob is ever benign.

[Old Sarge]

We can come together as a band of brothers fighting for the dignity and honor of our independence, or we can be herded into cattle cars for a final trip to the camps.

There is no salvation in government. That is the singular message of the Obama presidency.

AMEN.

[maica]

In my letter of resignation I said, "Welfare promotes far more dependency than it overcomes." I was naive and young. (Still am naive, just not young) The purpose of welfare is to enslave.

I was a Public Health nurse in West Baltimore in 1969 and 1970. I saw every day what shoveling War on Poverty money into that community was doing to intact families, and to single teenage girls.

Although I felt my job was important, I had an opportunity to go to Jamaica on The SS HOPE, so left Baltimore in '71. Also naive, I never dreamed that the powers-that-be would not correct the deteriorating situation of the people living in the 'ghetto' - as reporters called it then.

Apparently, building high-rise blocks of flats so girls could leave their mothers' homes and have their own apartment to raise her own fatherless children was considered success in the War.

Working married fathers were given strong encouragement to 'leave' the household: the welfare bennies added up to more than some fathers could bring home if their job was in an unskilled field.

Now, almost a half century later, I see our country falling into the same death spiral as Baltimore's poor did all those years ago. If history is an example, there might not be enough rational people in power positions to reverse the trend of sitting back and waiting for the checks to arrive. And the food, and the phones, and the special checks for extra bennies, and the subsidized housing and .....

[golux]

Well said, Louis. THANK YOU.