Saturday, July 2, 2016

Which Serves Us Best?


As we approach Independence Day, please compare the words of “Hail, Columbia,” a once-popular patriotic song by Joseph Hopkinson, to the carryings in of the modern poet Alberto Terego, who came of age in the turbulent nineteen-sixties, and was obviously very much disenchanted with what he found.

Hail, Columbia, happy land!
Hail. ye heroes, heaven-born band,
Who fought and bled for freedom’s cause
Who fought and bled for freedom’s cause 
And when the storm of war was done
Enjoyed the peace your valor won.

Let independence be our boast,
Ever mindful what it cost,
Ever grateful for the prize,
Let it’s altar reach the skies.

Firm, united let us be
Rallying ‘round our liberty,
As a band of brothers joined,
Peace and safety we shall find.

~ § ~

Do you prefer that, or would you rather subscribe to the following “modernist” view of American patriotism?

Bashing the Navy blue of sky
fierce color whirls and thrusts itself 
in senseless patterns!
Loud noises crack and shrill 
in mockery of cannon shot.
the “little folk”
sit and stare
forgetting each other 
in vapid contentment.

Sedentary buttocks spread and sag
in canvas deck chairs.
Ice cream-sticky, 
chocolate-covered children
gape and  giggle ––
whine and whimper.

Rolled in a rough blanket
adolescent lovers
mockingly tempt fate,
And cling to the destruction
of their sweetness.

Crack! and the sky fills 
with cruel white light.
Now, God can see
each family group
spread in shabby rows
Neatly spelling out ‘DEATH,”
punctuated with beer cans.

The flag has now flown
and dropped its burning stars
one by one to the ground.
No one listens as the band plays
the national anthem –– 
out of tune.

~ § ~

Which sort of thinking suits your brand of patriotism? Which would make glad the hearts of of John Adams, Ben Franklin and the others glad they bothered to risk all for the love of Principle and Freedom? They are gone now.We have only their words left to guide us, but just as it was with them it's up to each of us to choose what course we will take.  HINT: The paths of least resistance will never lead us toward Liberty and Justice, but only to Chains and Slavery.

As befits the present fragile, fearfully tenuous condition of the nation today we've having a SOMBER - CONTEMPLATIVE - SUPPLICATORY  - and PRAYERFUL observance of INDEPENDENCE DAY WEEKEND here at FreeThinke's blogspot.

This does not mean expressions of joy and good humor are not welcome, but it does mean that mockery, cynical sneering and mindless, partisan BOILERPLATE –– from either side of the aisle –– will either be deleted or denounced.


  1. Replies
    1. In other words, KYNICISM

      In the “Cynicism as a Form of Ideology” section of The Sublime Object of Ideology, Zizek discusses the notion of cynicism and kynicism. He describes cynicism as a way of interpreting ideology which highlights the distance between the ideological mask and social reality without actually acknowledging it. He writes, “cynicism is a paradox of an enlightened false consciousness,” which I understand as meaning the cynical subject understands the falsehood behind the particular ideology, but does not admit the falsehood of it. Zizek presents kynicism in opposition to cynicism, described as “the popular, plebeian rejection of the official culture by means of irony and sarcasm.” Kynicism is essentially the opposite of cynicism as it confronts those falsehoods of ideology that are masked by cynicism.

    2. All right, FJ, you my call it what you like, but for me the opposite of Cynicism is Cultivated Faith coupled wth Determined Optimism.

      I must admit that in this world that requires constant vigilance –– a devotion that "modern people" would probably say borders in mania. I, of course, refuse to look at it that way.

      Eternal TRUTH is exactly that. The ways in which we attempt to discuss it may change with the times, but TRUTH, itself, is in no way subject to the whims and caprices of Fashion –– intellectual or otherwise.

    3. Times are a changin' Mr. FreeThinke. If you can admit that a person with a "cultivated faith" tends to overlook certain "negative aspects" of THAT faith on purpose and with a "glass half full" attitude when challenged by somewith with the "opposite" perspective, then perhaps we get closer to what the "cynicism" that we ALL harbour implies... and THAT has got nothing to do with revealing "truth".

    4. for in the first "thankful/ grateful" poem, Columbia is no longer that Happy Land... and to claim that it is would no longer be the "truth".

    5. Thersites,
      I must agree that "Columbia" is no long "that Happy Land." That is the reality today.

    6. And so, the "critique" of "bland" patriotism offered by the second poem isn't entirely untrue, but it's "harshness" does seem more than a bit unwarranted in the absence of any suggestions for constructive alternatives. It's simply a curse at the heavens that does not cry for a more respectful tradition, but merely mocks the hard-fought gains won by citing the ease and apparent purposelessness in peacetime offered by contemporary life.

    7. Meanwhile FT attempts to roll back the contemporary tides... bon courage mon ami et bon chance!

    8. "Salvation" in Sanskrit is translated very simply as "a turning of the mind," or so I've been told.

      The world has always been a place of danger, aggression, persecution, turmoil, terror, paralytic anxiety and profound injustice since the beginning of mankind's long journey through countless millennia.

      The gradual discovery of what-I-prefer to call Divine Truth bit-by-bit has revealed fundamental principles that make up the Bedrock of Existence.

      We are not able to come to Truth collectively, but only as individuals. What-I-see-as "True Religion" seeks no panacea or permanent cure for the Human Condition, as a whole, but it does provide the individual, who is open to it, with a highly effective methodology for coping with the inevitable vagaries that life brings to us all sooner or later.

      "See ye first the Kingdom of God (Truth), ... and all these things [i.e. what you truly need] will be added into you."

      What I have come to believe this means is that instead of fretting and fuming in fruitless attempts to make the world conform to OUR notions of what it OUGHT to be, we should, instead, seek to perfect ACCEPTANCE of what it IS, and learn –– with a dutiful determination to be guided by Love –– to live in harmony with the limitations Life imposes on us while doing what we can to make things more easier and pleasant for those who come within our sphere of influence however small it may be.

      It's a simple –– and as maddeningly complex –– as that.

    9. I agree with FJ, the opposite of cynicism is not romanticism, that would be like saying that the opposite of running is running in the other direction.
      Perhaps the true opposite of cynicism is skepticism. The good skeptic maintains an open mind, neither accepts nor dismisses a new idea as it arises, but assesses it by the standard of the evidence (gathering fresh evidence designed to test the new idea if necessary), equally unswayed by optimism and pessimism (whether temperamental or determined).

      Not an easy trick. ;)

      As for perfect acceptance, I can go as far as Kant's "no straight thing," but no further. I beg that your individual effort for personal redemption not interfere with my desire to improve the world, a little, by whatever small personal influence I can bring to bear and, why not, through politics?

      I understand your warning against attempting to impose an impossible dream upon an unyielding reality. Politics is strictly the art of the Possible. But, I reply, "the Possible" is broader than the "Currently Is," and it is suitable that politics explore it.

    10. Good point, jez. But if not skepticism, then perhaps "indifference". ;)

    11. :P

      The problem of skepticism

      Origin of the Logical. Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical, the domain of which must originally have been immense. But numberless beings who reasoned otherwise than we do at present, perished; albeit that they may have come nearer to truth than we! Whoever, for example, could not discern the "like" often enough with regard to food, and with regard to animals dangerous to him, whoever, therefore, deduced too slowly, or was too circumspect in his deductions, had smaller probability of survival than he who in all similar cases immediately divined the equality. The preponderating inclination, however, to deal with the similar as the equal - an illogical inclination, for there is no thing equal in itself - first created the whole basis of logic. It was just so (in order that the conception of substance should originate, this being indispensable to logic, although in the strictest sense nothing actual corresponds to it) that for a long period the changing process in things had to be overlooked, and remain unperceived; the beings not seeing correctly had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." In itself every high degree of circumspection in conclusions, every skeptical inclination, is a great danger to life. No living being might have been preserved unless the contrary inclination - to affirm rather than suspend judgment, to mistake and fabricate rather than wait, to assent rather than deny, to decide rather than be in the right - had been cultivated with extra ordinary assiduity. The course of logical thought and reasoning in our modern brain corresponds to a process and struggle of impulses, which singly and in themselves are all very illogical and unjust; we experience usually only the result of the struggle so rapidly and secretly does this primitive mechanism now operate in us. Nietzsche, "Gay Science" (111)

    12. You guys seem to want to tear FreeThinke down? Why? He seems to want to help avoid the sickness of the times with a self made strategy that looks beyond the world, which has always been a terrible place for most people, by looking inward instead to find something higher and better. I can't see anything wrong with that.

    13. If FT wants to see his glass as half full, that's his right, Trevor. What he CAN'T do is proclaim his glass half full and insist that this "half full" perspective is the "only" truth of any "worth".

      Eternal TRUTH is exactly that. The ways in which we attempt to discuss it may change with the times, but TRUTH, itself, is in no way subject to the whims and caprices of Fashion –– intellectual or otherwise.

      For as Nietzsche once said, "the criterion for truth is an increased feeling of power". And so unless I occupy the exact same subjective position as FT, my "truths" of 'worth" to ME are likely to be different.

    14. ...and his denial of MY "petty" truths in favor of his "Grand-Eternal" ones don't make me feel more "powerful".


    15. Besides, as Nietzsche points out, there's also great value in fiction. We affirm some of our greatest "truths" though it (logic/ equality).

    16. FT can believe and assert anything he wants to, ––and will continue to do so as long as God allows him to function.

      What FT has NEVER done, despite his vigorous positive tone when expressing his convictions, is make even the slightest suggestion that others must or should be coerced into accepting FT's views without question or pause.

      FT only reserves the right to STATE his views unequivocally for the consideration of others without being censored, censured, insulted, or otherwise bullied and maligned.

      FT does not like to argue.

      He happily leaves that for others to do, even though he views the practice as lamentable and largely a waste of time. };^)>

    17. "Degustibus non est disputandum."

    18. Eternal Truth is never a matter of "taste." It simply IS.

      Ignore it, deny it, defy it as you will, IT is immutable and everlasting and cannot be destroyed or transformed by the application of temporal logic no matter how impassioned and febrile the argument becomes.

      Those who spend precious time working to deny or defeat Truth will inherit the wind.

    19. The legitimate purpose of argument is to establish truth.

    20. Is truth established or determined (ferreted out or uncovered)?

    21. Some fruits hang low for easy plucking, for others you sometimes have to shake the tree.

    22. Jez,
      sometimes have to shake the tree


      But my point was the argument per se doesn't uncover the truth. Neither is the truth "established."

    23. We must be using "establish" differently. But I agree, not all argument is to the purpose of "establishing" or testing the truth of a given proposition - I would call that type of argument illegitimate.

      I think at this point we're close to forming a Monty Python tribute act.

    24. I think that Jez is addicted to dispute for the sake of dispute. It's characteristic of those who profess to have no faith in God or love for established norms.

      I've never said that ANYONE has to agree with me, but I insist on my right to assert my beliefs without being continually challenged by insincere, unwanted questions and challenges that I see as motivated by a desire to "yank my chain" and otherwise irritate and discommode me –– especially in my own house, as it were.

      Jez knows full well by now –– or SHOULD –– that my point of view and his are incompatible and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

      Please consider the subject CLOSED.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. We'll deal with that once speculation ceases and clear, decisive action is taken either to indict or dismiss the charges against Her Heinous.

      While I share your dislike and rejection of H. Rodham Clinton I don't think speculation over her sordid affairs and unseemly conduct is appropriate for the Fourth of July weekend.

      Too much nattering negativity befouls the atmosphere and dulls the mind.

  3. The two contrasting poems show the essence of "then" and "now" very well.

    I think too many people have been hypnotized into accepting a cheap, destructive way of thinking, and that is why these changes have taken place.

    If you are trying to help turn the process around, I thank you for it, but the images of ocean and broom keeps getting in the way of hope it could be done.

    1. I am trying to do just that, Trevor, and I thank you for noticing.

      I hope you all visit frequently. Please don't be shy. We don't tolerate posters who make a nuisance of themselves by taunting or trying to badger others.

      I may taught them right back at other blogs, as you might have noticed, but here they get finessed on sight. ;-]

      We hope to keep this a BASTARD-FREE ZONE. }:^)>

      Have a good Fourth!

  4. The Left loudly proclaims that the ideology of the "patriot" is cynically dishonest, for it hides or disguises the attrocities committed in the name of establishing or maintaining the liberties won. The Right loudly proclaims that the ideology of the "dissenter/ dissident" is cynical because it fails to acknowledge the benefits received and won through the patriots hard contributions of blood and treasure. The kynic doesn't seek to keep anything hidden, he simply mocks the ideological surpluses combined in both... :P

  5. America

    Although she feeds me bread of bitterness,
    And sinks into my throat her tiger’s tooth,
    Stealing my breath of life, I will confess
    I love this cultured hell that tests my youth.
    Her vigor flows like tides into my blood,
    Giving me strength erect against her hate,
    Her bigness sweeps my being like a flood.
    Yet, as a rebel fronts a king in state,
    I stand within her walls with not a shred
    Of terror, malice, not a word of jeer.
    Darkly I gaze into the days ahead,
    And see her might and granite wonders there,
    Beneath the touch of Time’s unerring hand,
    Like priceless treasures sinking in the sand.

    1. Thanks for that, Ducky. A well-written piece in classic Shakespearean sonnet form. However, like most products of the past hundred years it appears conflicted, full of inner torment, and shows a discomforting degree of anger mixed with perplexity.

      In the end the only certain thing about it is the conviction that we are headed toward the same sad end as all the other great civilizations in recorded history.

      While I too often share that view lately, I have never had occasion to think that our country has fed me "bread of bitterness," while "sinking her tiger's tooth into my throat."

      My immigrant grandparents having fulfilled the classic vision of The American Dream –– according to their definition –– never expressed disenchantment, never uttered a word of complaint, and would have ferociously attacked anyone who expressed disdain or derision towards their adopted country. And I assure you they were neither "rich" nor "highborn," and lived without pretentiousness of any kind, though they certainly were ambitious.

      How did you discover Claude McKay? I confess never to have heard of him before today.

    2. How do you THINK ducky discovered a fellow traveller. They're all in the little red diaper baby book.

    3. I came across McKay through an interest in the Harlem Renaissance. He was a major figure.

      Good friends with Edna Millay.

      Like most of the poets of the HR he was critical of America but loved her potential.

    4. Loved her potential?
      Trust me, there's enough she's done to love without waiting for the "potential".

    5. Thanks for that, Ed. I agree, but also acknowledge Ducky's point that American Negroes would naturally view our country from a perspective different from the rest of us.

      What I object to about so-called "liberals" is the way they wallow in negativity for the express purpose of bullying and bludgeoning the more fortunate into feeling GUILT for all the evils of this world.

      The late Elie Wiesel (1928-2016), a most remarkable, courageous, impassioned and charismatic individual, made a splendid career out of doing everything he possibly could to generate GUILT in every group imaginable –– including fellow Jews –– for living comfortably through WWII without so much as lifting a finger to help those caught up in the horror of the Holocaust. The flaw I see in Wiesel's reasoning is his failure to acknowledge the horror that befell that war's OTHER victims, and to take into account the complexities, immense challenges, and tremendous sacrifice the Allies faced in their ultimately successful attempt to defeat the Axis Powers.

    6. Wiesel lost his entire family during the Holocaust. I am not surprised that that he never acknowledged the war's OTHER victims.

      His book Night is one of most powerful books I've ever read. My students who read the book never fail to be moved by Wiesel's remarkable spirit of resilience.

    7. I'll respond to you, AOW, by quoting remarks I made to Jersey McJones earlier at Western Hero, when Jersey objected to Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ as "too nasty." For all his blustering ways, Jersey is really a very tender-hearted fellow who can't seem to face the immense cruelty in this world with enough courage to give it credence.

      At any rate here's what I said to him:

      What the Romans did to Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ with the complicity and acquiescence of the majority of His own people, –– the Jews of the ancient world ––, was about as "nasty" as any human atrocity could hope to get. There's no doubt about that.

      The Big Difference between Jesus Christ and the many millions of other victims of unspeakable sadistic cruelty and injustice is that JESUS said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

      Jesus knew and mean to tell all of us that the only possible way to stop evil is to absorb it, and NOT pass it on in an attempt to "get even" with it.

      If the majority could learn that lesson, aggression, oppression, rebellion, torture, imprisonment and bloodshed would cease. The trouble is that few-if-any-of us have the wisdom or the strength of character to forgive the unforgivable, and so we pass the torch of violent reprisal from generation to generation.

      Lately, we are not even paying LIP SERVICE to the Truth of Jesus' Example. It's just too easy to give way to fury when we believe we've been treated unjustly.

      It's understandable but deeply regrettable, because it keeps us imprisoned in the same old "box" we've inhabited for countless centuries.

      I have not read much Wiesel, but I've read articles about him and sympathetic to him where he was quoted extensively. From the little I've read the tone of his worldview, moving as it may be to anyone with a capacity for empathy, still remains fixed on the ages old Circular Path that digs deeper and deeper ruts of gloom, despair into the soil, and the bitterness and endless recriminations that come with the desire to wreak vengeance on one's enemies.

      I see that as the absolute ANTITHESIS of the Gospel.

      Haven't we been taught that Vengeance belongs to God –– ALONE?


      Festus Claudius "Claude" McKay (September 15, 1889 – May 22, 1948) was a Jamaican-American writer and poet. A seminal figure in the Harlem Renaissance McKay wrote four novels: Home to Harlem (1928), a best-seller that won the Harmon Gold Award for Literature, Banjo (1929), Banana Bottom (1933), and in 1941 a manuscript called Amiable With Big Teeth: A Novel of the Love Affair Between the Communists and the Poor Black Sheep of Harlem. The MS has not yet been published.

      McKay also authored collections of poetry, a collection of short stories, Gingertown (1932), two autobiographical books, A Long Way from Home (1937) and My Green Hills of Jamaica (published posthumously), and a non-fiction, socio-historical treatise entitled Harlem: Negro Metropolis (1940).

      His 1922 poetry collection, Harlem Shadows, was among the first books published during the Harlem Renaissance. His Selected Poems was published posthumously, in 1953.

      McKay was attracted to communism in his early life, but he always asserted that he never became an official member of the Communist Party USA. However, some scholars dispute the claim that he was not a communist at that time, noting his close ties to active members, his attendance at communist-led events, and his months-long stay in the Soviet Union in 1922–23, which he wrote about very favorably.

      He gradually became disillusioned with communism, however, and by the mid-1930s, had begun to write negatively about it. ...

    9. FT,
      Jesus knew and mean to tell all of us that the only possible way to stop evil is to absorb it, and NOT pass it on in an attempt to "get even" with it.

      I don't exactly see His willing sacrifice that way. He knew that He must die to bring to pass the offer of salvation for those who choose to accept that offer. Along those same lines, He told Peter to put away his sword because "it is for this purpose that I came into the world."

      Also, he didn't "absorb" the money changers in the Temple. He got a whip and drove them out.

      Ecclesiastes teaches that there is a time for everything -- including a time for hate and a time for war. I'm sure that you know the passage to which I refer.

    10. The above said....Scripture makes it clear that we are not to lose hope. The salvation which Jesus purchased with His blood is the Hope of Mankind -- eternally speaking. In the meantime, we have temporal matters with which to cope.

    11. And one more thing...

      "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

      That is, torturing and killing the Son of God. None of us is the Son of God in the sense of the Trinity.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Comments have to address the topic of the post –– obliquely at the very least –– in order to be accepted here.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. We'll deal with that once speculation ceases and clear, decisive action is taken either to indict or dismiss the charges against Her Heinous.

      While I share your dislike and rejection of H. Rodham Clinton I don't think speculation over her sordid affairs and unseemly conduct is appropriate for the Fourth of July weekend.

      Too much nattering negativity befouls the atmosphere and dulls the mind.

    2. You sure got that right, FreeThinke. A HAPPY FOURTH to you.

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Tom, you are NOT going to be allowed to play the role at THIS blog that you play over at Who's your Daddy?

      We do not accept just anything and everything here, and will NOT permit THIS place to degenerate into a Slugfest Between Mindless Advocates of Antagonism and Hatred in any form.

      I hope I have made myself clear?

      Have a HAPPY FOURTH!

  9. Cynicism on July 4th? Not from me!

    But I do confess to a certain if-only wistfulness during the Independence Day season.

    1. I believe most of us "of a certain age" feel that way too, AOW.

      I know I shall never stop mourning the passing of what-has-come-to-be-known-as Norman Rockwell's America, despite my having no idea during that blessed era that I was living the realization of beautiful dream –– a dream that was all-too-temporary as it turned out.

    2. I don't think Norman Rockwell's America is necessary to appreciate many aspects of the 4th.

      I've had several great experiences at 4th ceremonies with friends or family. A time for optimism even as we enter this year's election.

    3. You like all the rest of your stupid delusional buddies are blinded by the ahole you worshippers bow down to, you seem to be disappointed because he promised us hope and change – to become a uniter rather than a divider – impartial observation will tell you he lied. Because he has consistently played the “race card” and promoted class warfare with his so-called “progressive” policies. Increasing racial tension to an extent never before seen.

  10. With regard to Elie Wiesel, whose works I have read....

    He did NOT advocate bitterness and endless recriminations that come with the desire to wreak vengeance on one's enemies. He did, however, advocate the bringing to justice of the Nazi monsters. And monsters they were!

    As Wiesel came face to face with Mengele, who cannot be classified as anything but an evil monster who deserved whatever tortures were visited upon him. See Wikipedia.

    The Holocaust is a part of history. I believe that remembrances are appropriate. "Never again" (Eisenhower upon seeing the outcomes of the death camps when he entered them).

    Now that the Holocaust survivors are aging out, people should never be allowed to forget what happened.

  11. Both serve their purpose. Would Hail Columbia gladden the hearts of Adams, Franklin, et al. or would the truth in the second poem sadden them?

  12. I think FreeThinke is trying to get everybody to think above and beyond politics and the other cares of this world and get more into the spiritual side of things. People don't think about that much anymore, because the left would like to erase awareness of anything but material stuff. The left has always been antagonistic to the idea that God could exist, but we should resist the left on that, I think it's probably more important than we know.

  13. Because of the 4th of July, there has been a lot of talk and blogging about the Constitution. "If We Can Keep It" was the famous phrase quoted after the signing of the Constitution. Few thought the Constitution would survive to set up a working government, much less, still be the guiding document for a society some 250 years later.
    Even with the Constitution still intact, we can lose our Democracy, or freedom, and our independent lifestyle. "Opportunity" can only be assured in a thriving economy. Class divisions in America means class division according to how much money one has. Laws eliminate the class differences of race, religion and other groups that defined class differences centuries ago.
    If our country splits to sharply between those who have and those who have not, America will not work. That split is sharper now than in decades. Those who have will not tax themselves to help those who have not. Although, in a past generation, that's exactly what the people who had, did.
    We all know the secret to America and its promise lies in our small businesses. Yet we seem to have a climate in national politics of large corporate leanings and financial interests.
    These corporations have been given financial help by the people (our tax dollar bailouts) in the hope that would preserve opportunity for the individual. The corporations were saved from going under, but these corporations have not spread the good fortune to the individual. Why should they. They regained their losses. Do we expect them to care about individuals?
    In order for these corporate interests to thrive and make huge profits, they support the conservative (Republican) agenda of small government and less taxes. In time of national need for individuals, they make it sound anti-American for the government to aid its citizens.
    Individuals suffering is not something corporations add to their profit equation. All the talk about good, happy employees makes a better company, is hogwash! It might, but corporations could care less about the happiness of their employees. During times of high unemployment, is their best situation. Worker complaints diminish during times of high unemployment. In fact, this is the time corporations take the most advantage of workers. Americans seem to think it's a good thing to have fewer union workers. Really? Wait until they have no say in what the company they work for does to them, or for them.
    As baby boomers are retiring, corporations are planning for the slim down. They are not about to have old people (with lots of health problems) and high pensions. Government and corporations being frugal and cutting services, pay, and benefits will have a new and colder definition in the future for individuals.
    These splits can ruin a society, thus a country and the government. The Constitution cannot stop the mean, selfish nature of capitalist, or profiteers. If we neglect and abuse the individual, we die. The country was set up for people, individuals. If we forget that and allow our legislators to make laws favoring corporations, we die. The Constitution will still be intact, but the country will be lost and dead.

    1. Well, you've obviously put in a lot of time cobbling all
      that together. I can't see how it relates to
      either of the contrasting pieces of verse I put up for consideration and discussion, but I'll let it stand if only as an example of how many half-truths, fanciful notions, inaccurate assertions, pure poppycock and wishful thinking go into partisan statements such as yours.

      I have no idea how old you might be, but I have to assume you are a good deal younger than I, and therefore, have been subjected to the tragic process of MISEDUCATION foisted on the American Public since treacherous crypto-Marxists stealthily took over the educational system long, long ago.

  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Comments have to address the topic of the post –– obliquely at the very least –– in order to be accepted here.

    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  15. Republicans since the 1930’s have been trying to eliminate the social programs, and have never had majority (or public approval) to do that, so they just starved the system of money. And here we are.

    This generation will be the first generation to pass off an America much worse off, than it was left to them. Now, it is a moral issue.

    1. There were no "social programs" before the 1930's, but yes Conservatives have always been against the idea of initiating dependence on government largesse. FDR's NEW DEAL was Marx-inspired Socialism with a cute new label pure and simple. Conservatives have always been aware that this form of government leads to degeneration, degradation and mutually shared poverty in the end.

      The Welfare State has proven itself, unsustainable over and over and over and over and over and over again, yet the concept buys votes, so unprincipled, power-hungry politicians keep pushing in that direction just to keep themselves in power. It's a sweet little racket –– for them.

      If the nation is impoverished it is only because of the TRILLIONS of dollars forcibly extracted from the taxpayers for several generations now to pay for programs that DON'T WORK.

      As Maggie Thatcher famously said, "The only thing wrong with Socialism is that sooner or later you tun out of other people's money."



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.