Jen Kuznicki
Last week’s Chick-fil-A saga drove home the left’s thought process on economic liberty.
Since the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which I wrote about here, the left has been absolutely apoplectic that freedom of speech includes where you decide to put your money.
On Wednesday of last week, thousands of people, either outraged at the left’s isolation of the owner of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, or because of the duel attack on the First Amendment, thronged the restaurants in cities all over the nation. People showed support of the owner by using their dollars to send the message that the left will not silence the free speech and religious rights of a United States citizen.
When the left reacted, they said they were not mad because Mr. Cathy held his views and spoke freely, but because he gives money to organizations who are against same-sex marriage, or in their words, “hate organizations.” Once again showing they have no interest in allowing a person to do with their own money what they please without fighting individuality tooth and nail.
This mentality is evil, and I believe a very clear example of what the left’s wishes are for the future of the nation.
Nancy Pelosi said a short while ago that part of the agenda of the modern Democrat party is to overturn Citizens United by creating a Constitutional Amendment. The left has been feigning outrage that money, earned by and spent by corporations, should not and cannot be used in political campaigns or for influence within the political process. I say feigning outrage, because they do not disclose that the Citizens United case also affirmed their ability to use money taken from union members to affect the same type of influence.
The difference between what the right does with money and what the left does with money is the key.
The right uses their own earned money, the fruit of their own labor, done with their own hands, minds or backs, as they wish to support the causes they agree with.
The left uses tax dollars, taken from individuals, as well as union dues, taken from individuals, skimmed off the top of their pay, earned with the labor of the union member’s hands, minds or backs, to use for their own agenda, assuring the union members they are acting in their interest.
On Saturday, Mark Levin asked the audience at the AFP Defending the American Dream Summit, “Since when does the money you earned through your own labor belong to the government?”
The question is rhetorical, yet how many people forget that what we owe to the government is really up to us?
How much you pay in taxes is really how much you are willing to give to organizations within the government you disagree with. Just like a conservative who is forced to pay union dues in order to work in his chosen field, imposed by those who will do what they wish with it, you are forced to pay progressively more taxes, in order to exercise the right to live and work freely in this nation.
While the left argues for more and more taxation, the right argues for less taxation and less largess to the astonished outrage of the left. How could Americans be told by those “crazy right-wingers” that your money is your own, and the federal government is not your master and you the slave? After all, if the government takes most of what I earn, am I not an indentured servant? Am I 35% slave and 65% free? Adding federal, state and local taxes, am I 56% slave and 44% free? If I am 44% free to do with my money what I wish, am I free to buy chicken at a restaurant? Is Dan Cathy 44% free to give to organizations he agrees with? Are we as a nation 44% free to delouse the systems of government who would enslave us? The nearly 50% of people living in this nation who pay no income taxes rely on government, and are mentality slaves and don’t know it.
If we are not free to make our own choices with 44% of what we earned, why are the unproductive, and that includes people throughout the systems of government, who live off the taxes we pay, 100% free to choose what to do with the money we earned?
More to the point, why are we allowing it to happen?
The left is adamant. You will bend to their will, or it will be forced upon you, because you are no longer free to do what you wish with your own property, because you “didn’t get there on your own,” you needed help from them, first. A more oppressive form of rule cannot be found, save the dictates of King George.
Thoughtful Americans must continue to fight this evil through influence if we are to live in a peaceful society, because when there is institutionalized anti-justice, right and wrong and up and down are questioned, and being 44% free will seem as though we grabbed the brass ring.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
2 Responses to How Free Will The Left Allow Us To Be?
My Tweets
Follow Me On The Web!
Right on target. Concise, logical, and very true. I applaud you.
How much power will a democratic majority afford the left and allow them the opportunity to institutionalize taxes, laws and regulations that confiscate your property and impede the liberty you require to acquire it? There is no actual limit and what would be considered tyranny today will be looked upon as normal tomorrow. Look at the past, compare it to today and let your imagination predict the future. If you don’t like what you see then you understand what motivates you to resist, what motivates you to vote and what motivates you to educate others before those others are bought off or become voting drones dependent upon a taskmaster.
At this moment in time America is not the Constitutional Republic she was designed to be. We are a democracy that seeks constitutional clarity (or a new and novel reinterpretation) every now and then. If you are a conservative and understand natural law you want your constitutional contract enforced. If you are from the left you hope enough justices will redefine original intent and arrive at a new meaning to undermine the contract that you hate.
Jen points out that union dues often argue with First Amendment free choice because your property (money) is often used to undermine your freedom. It even goes further than that.
America’s first freedoms were based upon the freedom from religious intolerance. Not only were new arrivals fleeing from European religious persecution but it soon became apparent that even in early America political power was associated with religious affiliation. Consequently the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause extinguished any theocratic requirement for the individual to participate in government. Today it has gone further and it would be inconceivable for a government employee to be discriminated against because they were of a particular faith. That concept, extrapolated and advanced is behind many of our discrimination laws when it comes to government employment. And while I have a problem with such laws when applied to the private sector I am stymied by the fact that some government jobs actually require the individual to belong to a union as an employment requirement. The Establishment Clause effectively addressed religious discrimination but it never envisioned that someday the union castes and guilds, reminiscent of the Middle Ages, would become the alternative that is just as discriminatory.
Not to be outdone is the new novel application of taxes. The whole World is still reeling from the mortgage debacle created by the out of control GSE, Fannie Mae. Not too different is another wealth transfer scheme that is hidden in the Sally Mae charter.
I recently told a summer employee that she was the target of an unfair tax designed to empower the institution that would be part of her indoctrination. How so she asked? Well since the recent Supreme Court decision (Affordable Care Act) makes no distinction between a tax and a penalty the same argument can be made when it comes to tuition and a tax, I answered.
The Universities, for a very long time have supported larger and more intrusive government. As a result government does what it can to subsidize them in indirect ways. The genesis of recent, markedly increased educational costs is directly attributable to the nationalization of the student loan program. How convenient for the Universities that they can always rely on students getting the necessary funds to pay for their overpriced education. How convenient for government that they can indirectly reward their supporters and seem like nice guys by the way they do it. If the private sector provided the loans the forces of supply and demand, value to cost and payback feasibility would predominate; educational costs would be more in line with actual value. In effect, the cost of an education, above its actual value, has the same effect as a tax instituted upon the user and simply given to another entity and camouflaged as part of the greater collective good.
The left may be adamant but it takes a voting public to allow them to diminish our freedom. They are doing their best to redefine equality as social justice. Sometimes they get ahead of themselves and blurt out anathema, as when telling us that others are responsible for our success. That alone should remind us of whom they are and what they are about and that as long as we have the liberty to pursue our dreams we must use part of that liberty to stop those that desire to take it away.