Since the mid 70s Liberals have been slowly changing what it once meant to be American

A long, slow, careful process

COMMENTARY

For those of you who weren't alive in the mid 70s early 80s; a popular Liberal strategy developed then, and is still in use today, was/is to get something declared a "Constitutional right" by the courts (even if it isn't) and then for those who can't afford to take advantage of their new-found "right" get the government (federal usually) to pay for it. Examples are; the right to food gave us food stamps and WIC, the right to housing gave us Section-8 Housing and Federal housing ghettos, babies with no father you're covered, and now "free" (ha, ha, ha) healthcare. And, those are just the three biggies off the top of my head.

You notice how providing these alleged "rights" free to your average American citizen poses no physical threat to the elected. On the contrary, it makes them beholding and easy votes during re-election.

However, we all have a Constitutional right to "bear arms" (ie. own weapons) actually stated in the Constitution, unlike the other court-declared rights. So following the Liberal logic (there's an oxymoron) if you're too poor to buy a cheap gun shouldn't there be a federal program to cover that?

No, because that weapon would allow you to protect yourself and family against evil-doers and a corrupt government. You might even begin to think you are actually in charge of you and your family's lives and safety. And, they can't have that. That's the government's job.

And, if you support weaning "the poor" off the government tit by helping and expecting them to become self-reliant; or propose helping the truly needy, but with a time limit; you're a heartless, no good, SOB who doesn't care.

In Washington if a new budget proposes an 8% increase in any program or department's budget and the counter-proposal is to raise it only 4%, that's considered a "cut." Even if actual spending the previous year went up by only 2%, it's still a cut to a Liberal. They just fail to tell you it's a cut from what they want, not a cut in actual spending. And, if it's somehow related to helping the "poor" you're just a heartless, racist, sexist, bigoted SOB. And, the definition of "poor" keeps expanding.

As I'm writing this a sign appeared on my Facebook page that says, "WELFARE WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A CAREER OPPORTUNITY." That pretty much says it all.

So, as you watch and listen to the on-going budget debates remember, Washington politicians don't speak English as we know it. To Liberals, not getting the increase they want is a cut; to Conservatives it's slowing the growth of the budget. To Conservatives, expecting people to stand on their own two feet and not need government support is compassion; to Liberals that's cruel and unusual punishment.