"You're on your own" vs. "We refuse to leave you alone" - Granite Grok

“You’re on your own” vs. “We refuse to leave you alone”

1. You’re On Your Own

Ever notice that Liberals want both ways, 1 & 2?  As a Conservative, they wish to take ownership of ours – #1.  Yep – lock, stock, and barrel.  They hate the idea that we like being on our own – being responsible for ourselves, being responsible for our families, friends, and neighbors.  They cannot understand that we believe that this is a virtue – a goodness.  They look at us and go “By yourselves? What about Community?  What about ‘all for one and one for all’?  What happens if you fail?”.

I have made a decision on my own.  I have decided that the resources for which I have worked and earned are less in value than what I need – or want.  An individual valuation – not a community (or “democratic”) decision (as the Occupy Wall Streeters want us all to do).  To them, “on your own” is a curse.  Obama is now using it just like militant atheists are belittling those of faith (“how STUPID are you to believe in that?”). Really, it must scare him so “You’re on your own”!  And he says it with a negative, sarcastic tone; “Social Darwinism” – makes it sound like its a bad thing!  Well, for him and his ilk, it is.  They hate our philosophy (and just to rub it in: “which built this country, no matter what Obama is claiming!”).  I find it perverse: they demand the “choice” to kill unborn children, but refuse to give us the freedom to decide for ourselves.

2. We Refuse To Leave  You Alone

Warrenism.  “Resistance is futile – you will be absorbed”. As I wrote here:  “YOU cannot succeed on your own – you are NOT good enough! You will ONLY succeed if others do the work for you”.  The collective mentality on steroids – they will work like the Borg – .  No one should dare think they have the ability to do things on their own and be successful.  And they will do everything to prevent you from doing so.  They refuse to leave us alone – it is a forced salvation by numbers.

At the end of the budget season here in NH, there are a number of people in most towns that propose “petition warrant articles” – appropriations put on the ballot to spend tax money on charities.  I’ve written about this before, and I am always against the idea for the simple idea is that I should not ever be in the position, via my vote, to force someone to give to a charity (even if it does benefit others in town) that they otherwise would not.  This year, I heard that it was my “moral obligation” to help others, that it was our “moral obligation” to do so – with the implication of “and we will force you even if you do not want to”.  Freedom to choose?  Freedom to associate – or not?

When it became voting time, the measures passed by big margins.  Freedom – not so much.  I would have to say that a preponderance of Libs showed up this election season – couple of years ago they all went down in flames.  But it shows that these “social services / non-profits” have become dependent on the tax teat – they keep coming back.  But I guess the worst is the lack of respect for our neighbors – “I spent your money on a charity because it would do you good to spend your money on a charity I approve of”.

Barack Of The BorgAnd Obama and the Progressives are looking to do this at the national level – on steroids.  They hate the idea that people have ideas and philosophies that differ from theirs.  They are, in fact, trying to erase our Founders philosophy.  And with it, our individualism.

Will you be absorbed in November?

 

 

>