“The conservative "thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the ideologue is merciless.”
― Russell Kirk
Topic: Is the NFL Truly Ready to Respond from a Public Relations Perspective with Regards to an Openly Homosexual Player, or Does Michael Sam Have an Ulterior Politically-Driven Agenda?
Over the now-five years of the Obama presidency, America has experienced a great deal of social turmoil and, ergo, change, which was the 2008 mantra and platform on which the president ran. The black community has become more emboldened than it has been since the end of the 1960's upon the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King and what is credited as the official end to the Civil Rights Movement. I dare state today that due to Obama's "publicly-subtle" encouragement, the black community's old resentment, hatred and bigotry, and cultural attacks on the predominantly white population in America are the most aggressive in the nation's history. Decades of infighting within the Beltway over whether or not some form of national health care service should exist is now no longer a dream to the Democrats, but a reality - one which has now proven to be more than the party bargained for with the glitches and general failures of the system's operations characteristic of all government-based service industries.
Then there is the issue over LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual) rights. Let me be abundantly clear on one thing: what occurs within the confines of the bedroom is no business of mine nor anyone else's. On the other hand, the statute as guaranteed implicitly within the First Amendment to the "right to the free exercise of one's religion" has been breached, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the state of California, which had held the Proposition 8 as law based upon the referendum of the people that marriage was between one man and one woman, must strike down the law, which manifested a domino effect for other states to begin legalizing same-sex marriages.
My position is clear: there is no place for government involvement in the realm of defining what legally is considered marriage, and who may legally marry. Furthermore, the legal definition of any marriage involving a religious connotation should be abolished and be granted sole determination to the individuals and denominations as to what is considered by a particular faith an acceptable holy union. While there are no specific laws within the Constitution prohibiting the intermingling of church and state, there was Thomas Jefferson's landmark letter dated January 1, 1802 to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association known as the "wall of separation" which specifically guaranteed that he, as president, would not interfere in the affairs of religious institutions. While the First Amendment states what I wrote above, it does not include within the language "separation of church and state," which unfortunately complicates the manner in which that portion of the amendment is to be interpreted. We know that conservatives and especially libertarians tend to lean upon constitutional law nearly to the point of the crossed "T's" and dotted "i's," while liberals traditionally expand their interpretations to manipulate them to fit their own agenda. Lawyers tend to be notorious with regards to this practice, as due to their training within law school, they are well-equipped and very adept at locating even the more minute loop holes within legal statutes. It is therefore unfortunate that while a conservative or libertarian will adhere to the true spirit and intent of the law, the liberal mindset is to dissect and endeavor in locating parts of constitutional directives and legal statutes for unspecified nomenclature which they may use at their disposal. Those are the mindsets of the three major political ideologies in America. Depending upon which of the three one chooses to adhere, an individual will doubtlessly have no qualms if he or she is a Democrat when the Left opts to exercise what are known nowadays with the flurry of President Obama's executive orders as Emergency Powers. CQ Press states these as follows:
In times of crisis presidents often lay claim to extraordinary powers to preserve the nation. Such emergency powers are neither granted expressly to the president nor delegated to Congress by the Constitution. Instead, they are judged to reside purely in the need for leaders to protect national sovereignty and domestic order. The mandate in Article II that the president “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution and uphold its provisions is considered to contain implicitly the notion of emergency powers.
The most significant use of presidential emergency powers was made by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Faced with the secession of the southern states, Lincoln claimed numerous emergency war powers to save the Union, in the process becoming what some have called a “constitutional dictator.” The most controversial use of the emergency power in the twentieth century came in 1951 when Harry Truman, who had put the nation on emergency footing after North Korea invaded South Korea, ordered the seizure of strike-threatened steel mills to avoid potential shortages. Truman based his action on the president's inherent authority to meet national emergencies. However, the Supreme Court later ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional.
In November 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, George W. Bush authorized the use of military tribunals for trying foreigners accused of terrorist acts against the United States. Bush said that emergency powers under the commander-in-chief clause gave him the latitude to put these measures into place.
Regarding the Obama scenario, there is great division over what is considered by him to be a state of emergency since he is choosing to utilize the debate over gun control and domestic economic affairs to buttress his agenda due to the current Congress having passed so few pieces of legislation in comparison to those of the recent past. In Machiavellian terms, what Obama has chosen to do, while highly disingenuous and in violation not only of the people's trust within their elected representatives and senators to be capable of voicing their interests and yet in his 2008 campaign pledge to lean upon Congress unlike his accusations towards George W. Bush, is to secure his basis for power. In paraphrasing (but not quoting since he never directly stated this) Niccolo Machiavelli from his landmark work which laid the foundation for how modern politics would be conducted called The Prince, the ends justify the means when one is wielding power. In choosing to exercise the Emergency Powers within the implied nomenclature of the law, as it is more in tune with common law than that of constitutional legal statutes, Obama has borne fruit to what Lord Acton once stated regarding those wielding absolute power:
"Absolute power corrupts absolute."
***
The $64,000 Question: Is the NFL Truly Ready for an Openly Homosexual Player?
Above, I discussed the immense social upheaval and discord between the races and persons of different sexual orientations. This portion of the article, however, comprises strictly of the story, and the potential implications and consequences, of the actual landmark event within the world of professional football of an athlete announcing his homosexuality. The concept regarding a professional athlete's homosexuality is no longer without precedent: we know this because of Jason Collins, who announced his homosexuality April 29 of last year. Questions have resonated across the mass media controlled primarily by the Left regarding the scenario of how players, coaches, and front office administrators and owners will react to the Sam scenario. The Left in the mass media, per usual, chose to declare victory in the name of social justice and revolution on behalf of everyone regardless of true sentiments for some in comparison to others. The following article from SB Nationdemonstrates the Left's presumptions of the NFL and, by dent of this, the public's general approval of the situation:
Following NFL Draft prospect Michael Sam's decision to publicly come out, anonymous NFL executives seem unconvinced the NFL will welcome openly gay player. On Twitter, the football community willing to put its name next to its opinion tells a differently story.
Here are actual quotes from anonymous NFL executives to Sports Illustrated:
"I don't think football is ready for [an openly gay player] just yet. In the coming decade or two, it's going to be acceptable, but at this point in time it's still a man's-man game. To call somebody a [gay slur] is still so commonplace. It'd chemically imbalance an NFL locker room and meeting room."
"I just know with this going on this is going to drop him down. There's no question about it. It's human nature. Do you want to be the team to quote-unquote 'break that barrier?'"
Hm. Here is how the rest of the NFL world reacted on Twitter.
If Michael Sam truly feels proud for who he is, than why does he feel the necessity to reassure himself by promulgating over the airwaves that "I'm not afraid to tell the world who I am. I'm Michael Sam: I'm a college graduate. I'm African American, and I'm gay"? If one feels truly proud and comfortable of who he or she is as an individual, there is no need to engage in a masquerade before the general public that he or she identifies himself not as Michael Sams the Individual, but Michael Sams the Black College Graduate Gay Football Player. This perhaps is nothing more than a publicity stunt to gain notoriety and leverage for a pre-draft public relations boost, to pressure NFL franchises who may not be comfortable with his public revelation into drafting him high or higher than he would have been under the fear of the Left's and its de facto control of the mainstream media's ostracizing and demonizing the parties in question, thus destroying the/these franchises PR, the appeal among the fan base comprising partially of the Left, and the losses in revenue in both attendance and television due to the Left's influence. He currently is expected to be drafted around the Third Round. The timing for Sam to be the latest LGBT activist to enter the public realm was coincidentally impeccable, and he may have played his cards like a heart from hell.
The bottom line is this: What one chooses to do in the bedroom is that person's business and no one else's. However, one should not use conspicuously disingenuous methods to advance his or her own agenda to bolster both his or her professional career due to riding the coattails of political intrigue and expediency nor to encourage individuals to identify themselves by accomplishments and sexual preferences rather than what all people should do: to claim that one is a person of character, integrity, but most importantly, of soul and faith in God or whatever higher power to which one adheres (if any at all).
***
Conclusion: The Official Interview of Michael Sam Announcing His Homosexuality
A sincere face amid saddened eyes. It appears as if Sam is pained and troubled by his revelation. But if he is being sincere, why would he opt to announce to the world of his choice in sexual preferences when all people should be looked upon the same if the average individual simply minded his or her own business? As previously stated, what occurs in the bedroom is no one else's business but each individual's. But more to the point, why did he choose to make the announcement when he did? The timing is most puzzling and intriguing because the NFL Combine is rapidly approaching and then the Draft is late in the spring. While the ayes have had it according to SB Nation, which again has adopted a very liberal perspective and assuming all people and NFL personnel will accept this admission piecemeal, the following article from CBSSports.comtakes a diametrically different approach to my assertion that Sam's choice to open the door to outspoken homosexuality may cost him dearly in the draft due to coaches and club general managers disliking distractions on their teams:
Feb. 9, 2014, will one day be remembered as it should -- as the day in which a young man described himself with pride and honesty.
But make no mistake, it is also the day that Missouri defensive end Michael Sam's stock in the NFL Draft began to drop because he announced he was gay. He was already sliding due to concerns over the dreaded 'tweener label -- with some scouts viewing him as too short for defensive end and a project to convert to stand-up linebacker following an inconsistent week at the Senior Bowl.
NFLDraftScout.com has Sam ranked as the No. 110 overall prospect. An initial drop to 160 from 90 on Monday morning was part of a comprehensive adjustment in the rankings leading up to next week's scouting combine that generated movement among hundreds of prospects. In all, 65 of the top 350 prospects were affected by the rankings update, and Sam was never intended to drop past No. 110. The bottom line is Sam's announcement will affect his position on the draft boards of some teams, but NFLDraftScout.com currently projects him as a third- to fourth-round prospect overall, with all factors considered.
As noted by CBSSports.com's Jeremy Fowler, Sam's teamates at Missouri learned of his secret in August. Rather than allow Sam's private life to divide the locker room, coach Gary Pinkel earned Coach of the Year consideration for his team's 12-2 record, which included their first-ever SEC East xhampionship and a No. 4 overall ranking to end the season -- the highest ever at Missouri.
Sam's teammates and coaches never spoke of Sam's personal life because it washis personal life. On the field, Sam's play spoke for itself. He was named Co-Defensive Player of the Year in the best conference in college football and earned comparisonsin this player profileto one of the NFL's most feared pass rushers.
If teammates knew about Sam's homosexuality, you can bet NFL scouts did, as well. And yet they didn't announce to the world that Sam was gay.
NFL clubs work hard to avoid distractions, which figures to hurt Michael Sam's stock. (USATSI)
The respect shown by Sam's teammates, coaches and the NFL to this point has been commendable. The NFL issued a statement shortly after the news broke of Sam's courageous announcement that read:
"We admire Michael Sam's honesty and courage. Michael is a football player. Any player with ability and determination can succeed in the NFL. We look forward to welcoming and supporting Michael Sam in 2014."
A statement by the league is a step in the right direction. The mostly positive feedback provided by anonymous NFL personnel in stories written for every sports outlet in the country shows that the league and its members are closer to welcoming a gay player than ever.
But issuing support behind a logo or the cloak of anonymity is far different than welcoming Sam (or other homosexuals) publicly.
In conversations with high-ranking front office officials since 2001, I've been told that a player's sexuality would have no bearing on his draft status. If, as Pete Prisco summarizes here, the player can play, he'll have no problem landing and sticking in the NFL.
The problem is that while Sam is a good prospect, he's not a great one. While starring as a defensive end for the Tigers, Sam was asked to play linebacker at the Senior Bowl and he struggled with the position change, showing limited flexibility and fluidity. This fact could limit him to the defensive end position in the traditional 4-3 alignment, further complicating his stock.
And while NFL teams may be more willing to accept a gay player in 2014, there remains a bit of a don't-ask-don't-tell policy. By announcing his personal lifestyle, Sam made it public. And with that announcement, Sam is inviting the media and by extension the public to follow his journey into the NFL.
Sam's homosexuality isn't the point. There are gay players in the NFL now and almost surely teammates, coaches and front office executives who know about them. But by coming out, Sam turned a very bright spotlight on himself.
And the reality is teams would rather the bright lights shine on their superstars on game day. Any club drafting Sam would add distractions for players, and teams normally work to avoid any distraction.
As the media glare intensifies at the Scouting Combine and the weeks leading up to the draft, Sam will be viewed as more and more of a distraction. That fact -- not Sam's homosexuality -- is what will cause him to slip into the late rounds or perhaps even entirely out of the draft.
***
(Above: Michael Sam's announcement of his homosexuality.)
Was Sam genuine in his honesty regardless of the timing? Or does he have an ulterior motive akin to Chris Kluwe, whose choice to become a political activist within the NFL has cost him his job with the Minnesota Vikings where, despite his ranking as the franchise's all-time leading punter, he was considered as an average but not spectacular talent, his lawyer is now threatening a class-action lawsuit due to his very vocal activism? (See the May 6, 2013 article from ESPN.comto reacquaint yourself with regards to the Kluwe case.) It is most interesting that Sam opted to schedule his announcement within the months preceding the NFL Combine and the Draft, and the implications are two totally different scenarios based upon how one chooses to perceive them. For a person with a History degree and minor in Political Science such as myself, my instinct based upon historical precedent and political tendencies are he could receive a significant boost in his draft stock due to his controlling the tide of public opinion with the liberal media championing his cause, as well, again, his use of this platform to launch a political activism career with regards to LGBT rights. On the other hand, he could also drop precipitously in his draft stock due to the fear of major inner and outside distractions, which football coaches - particularly those in the NFL - detest greatly. Regardless of what is to occur, this situation was destined to occur at some point. What the implications will be regarding how the NFL reacts, which is far more intensity-driven than the NBA with Jason Collins, remains intriguing to witness over the television and Internet sports sites and in how young Michael Sam chooses to conduct himself now that he is a singular figure in the league.
There have always been homosexuals in the world of sports, but only in the past year have two openly admitted publicly. If one's honesty with his or her sexual orientation entails the situation upon which Jason Collins embarked - dating Carolyn Moos and even was engaged to her until he called it off in 2009, all while she never suspected his true sexual orientation (See New York Daily Newsdated May 1, 2013 for specifics) - what can we expect from Sam? So far as I have researched, I have not found any accounts of a past girlfriend for him. If he has no ill-intent, all the better.
To each their own, and live and let live, I say, unless one is using his or her plight to gain power.
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi
The Great American Apostasy Courtesy of Government and the Entertainment Industry
Christian Contemporary musician Natalie Grant attended the 2014 Annual Grammy Awards ceremony as a nominee for the award of Best Christian Music Song based upon her chart-topping hit "Hurricane," and Best Gospel/Contemporary Christian Music Performance for "Alive (Mary Magdalene)," which she co-wrote with her husband, Bernie Helms. To her horror, she would be attending the most unholy gathering of the music entertainment industry's elites mocking Christianity, a phenomena which has become more posh over the past generation as left-wing moral decadence has sewn its seeds into the public's moral fabric and subconscious. There were at least two articles posted on my Facebook news feed divulging this information, with one being of course one of the conservative sites to which I am subscribed. But only of my friends, his name irrelevant but is a man I have known since high school and is of deep faith, posted a link to the story behind Mr. and Mrs. Helms' most unsettling night. I had heard about the mock "weddings" by Queen Latifah. Atop of that, the entire selling point behind the vast majority of the entertainment industry is that "sex sells," and this has been true since the initiation of the Sexual Revolution during the 1960's.
It truly astounds me, however, that while those who are considered parts of the population demographic "with the power" to accept any and all forms self-expression unconditionally regardless of how offensive to one's own core religious values or customs or be considered a racist or bigot, those within the loud minority who now dictate both government policy and the direction pop culture now will forever take refuse to acquiesce in kind, and instead mock those within the Christian religion, but champion all others. Even Islam, the so-called "religion of peace" which has reported be responsible for more than 270 millions slaughters over is nearly-1,400 year existence, is championed, and
(Above: Julie Borowski, libertarian media political figure. You may access her Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/JulieBorowski)
Julie Borowski writes to ask you:
"Young Americans for Liberty (great organization!) asked for our response to the State of the Union. Here's mine. What's yours?"
(Above: Borowski holding a sign written upon a sheet of paper about Obama's failed economic endeavors.)
My Response to Ms. Borowski's Public Inquiry:
If President Obama is truly serious about real economic growth, he will cease this farce of proposing -- or rather, signing illegally hundreds of executive orders -- more and more socialist solutions which have never worked in America, never worked in Western Europe including with our greatest ally, Britain, whom the president has alienated as he has the majority of the world -- and ultimately collapsed the Soviet Union and its satellite states beneath its iron curtain, which Ronald Reagan destroyed many years before it might have actually occurred.
President Obama's economic policies are really not even considered true policies, but rather are "anti-growth" and too concerned with "spreading the wealth" as he told Joe the Plumber in 2008. But what I want to know is since the president is intent upon redistributing wealth as once occurred in the former Soviet Union and Maoist China while, in theory, the rich were less rich or their clout was derived from being advanced to a high government position, did this make the poorer more economically-affluent? No! Of course not! Rather than creating the concept of all being wealthy under the rule of law, what Obama, as well as those totalitarian rulers and those in Western Europe, really implemented as part of their artificially constructed economies of scale was, and is, make the wealth less economically affluent while here domestically, Obama hands out tax breaks to those such was within Hollywood or major billionaire software, investment, and media moguls who support, fund, and campaign commercially for the Democratic Party. Yet, the middle class suffers because they are having their tax rates hiked substantially beyond the majority's (the bottom 98%) capacity to pay. When that occurs, those within the lower middle class bordering upon the poverty threshold slip below it, and there then is more who are impoverished than before. The poor who were already living in poverty never experience a true improvement in their quality of life because while they may be handed a government-subsidized pay increase via welfare, Obama will eventually raise minimum wage, the prices of goods will then artificially be increased substantially, and rather than providing an answer to mitigate the situation for the poor and middle class, all levels of income except for those within Obama's good graces will suffer, poverty will increase rather than the contrary, and economic growth will actually slip into a major double or triple-dip recession with the inevitable steep rising inflation due to artificially inflating pay wages which will inflate the price of goods and services... unless Obama foolishly decides to engage in price fixing, which failed miserably during the presidencies of Nixon through Carter and nearly collapsed the economic infrastructure due to the artificial price of goods and services not meeting the true costs of production and for purchase from their manufacturers, especially when profits did not manifest even with the proposed greater volume of buyers.
Expanding government to employ more workers only to deny them Obamacare health care coverage is low. As Obamacare, a far more insidious form of socialized medicine than what Britain and Canada have due to its nigh inaccessibility to the general public who then are taxed heavily for not signing up for the program, is essentially linked to the IRS, NSA, Homeland Security, and of course DHS. The American people's rights to privacy as implied by the Third and Fourth Amendments have been destroyed, and we as a people now reside in a police state where every input we place within an electronic medium is tracked, and those in dissent with the powers-that-be are targeted and often find themselves in legal trouble as has Dinesh D'Souza.
My final words here are as follows. People need to take care in reading the fine print of what every candidate claims he or she will do to improve the nation. When you listen to a charismatic politician such as Obama from Chicago, a city well-renowned as being the most corrupt in the U.S. due to more than 100 years of Democratic Party domination and the policies and illegal ties to the local mafia as part of the Machtpolitik practices and he (or she) chants "Yes, we can," all while his hypnotized audience blindly follows his every word; when celebrities such as Oprah and Kanye West declare him "a god," or when Obama travels to Egypt and is hailed based upon a hadith within an Islamic text as "the Mahdi" or "the promised warrior" by Arabic news agencies, there is danger. Obama narcissistically proclaims he is a divine figure with regards to his reach for great power, and I fear that before his last day in office has concluded, the world may find itself amid a cataclysmic conflict involving the Middle East, Russia, China, France, and likely the United Kingdom as there are military and economic alliances forming as we speak.
Below is my reply to a member of the American Far-Left who attempts to vindicate former Clinton Vice President Al Gore 's assertion from 1999 that by 2014 -- this year -- all of the world's polar ice caps would disappear. Clearly, this never happened, did not really come close to happening, and would probably take centuries or many millennia to occur in full.
Nothing pleasures me more in life than two things aside from being in the company of my beloved family members and closest friends: to write my poetry, for which I have a blog just for that; and to embarrass members of the Left due to their delusions of grandeur. And while this argument apparently continued well-beyond my reply to one Paul White and I never caught the remainder of it because I probably was busy writing poetry (which is what I spend most of my free time doing for pleasure), I think I stated very clearly my thoughts on the matter.
Kelsey Riffey shared ForAmerica's photo.
In 1999, Al Gore said that the polar ice caps would disappear by 2014. It’s 2014 and the ice caps are still there. Where’s Al’s apology?
Paul White actually you need to do your home work, summer 2013 saw the first pure liquid summer in the arctic. For the first time commercial shipping is possible in the northern reaches. Greenery is growing in places not before possible. Longer warming periods and record high temps in the region are a reality. 2014 will see 15 gigantic glaciers completely disappear.
Kelsey RiffeyThey also discovered volcanic activity there as well. I believe that climate change is due to a natural pattern that has occurred many times in nature. It was warmer during the middle ages than today. This cannot be blamed just on men in general. Al flies around on his luxury jets and he tells us that we shouldnt drive our cars. The has its own natural greenhouse due to Carbon without it the temperature drops almost 60 degrees. It is naive to think climate will not change.
Jonathan Henderson I suppose that in the past 214 years since the official beginning of the First Industrial Revolution in Europe that mankind has melted damn near every glacier and iceberg in the world, Paul, am I correct? What if I said to you that half of meteorologists and climatologists believe the entire phenomena behind man-manifested global warning to be untrue and impossible? The fact that for all time, the earth has experienced untold numbers of climate changing trends renders Al Gore's premise unproven and illogical since he is neither a damn meteorologist nor climatologist! I guess, though, that for the Left, the fact that over 48% of meteorologists and climatologists believe the theory that man-made global warming is false and lacking in any validity whatsoever is the inconvenient truth for you.
I find it both intriguing and interesting how over the past 40 to 50 years, government has passed untold numbers of pieces of legislation that were signed into law by Democrats and Republicans in the White House alike to curb "the tide of man-made global warming," and all were expected to make a dent in the situation, or what fear factors some of the nuts at Greenpeace wish to perpetuate. The federal government changed the manner in which the engines and exhaust systems of vehicles would forever be built in order to drastically cut back on carbon monoxide emissions; instead, the Left continues to claim to the contrary that we have further damaged the environment despite these new laws, and what is their answer? More legislation, more taxation, higher fuel costs, and higher prices for vehicles due to the new mileage guidelines required to be in effect by 2020. And I haven't even begun to discuss the failure of the Democrats to support the building of the Keystone XL pipeline to create thousands of new jobs; to largely end our reliance upon foreign oil from the Middle East; and furthermore, by decreasing our reliance upon Middle Eastern oil, we would then have the ability to largely leave that most unstable region that has never borne any fruit from international endeavors but more terrorism and the continued slaughtering of their own and our troops.
It is akin to the issue with mass poverty in the inner cities and rural areas, Paul: you can tax the rich and the middle classes beyond their capacities to pay and spread the wealth to the poor and lower the income gaps between the rich, middle, and sub-poverty line classes, but at the end of the day, all you have done is that you have made certain that the poor are poorer so longer as the rich and the middle class are less affluent. The wealthy have less with which to create jobs for the middle and lower classes if the conditions were to be legally allowed to be right to manifest them without socialism; the middle class is earning less money and many begin to slip below the poverty line threshold; and those who already were impoverished remain impoverished in order for the Democrats to receive their votes under the guise that they will continue the Robin Hood means of spreading the wealthy while making everyone else and the actual impoverished either poorer or still poor. If you continue to maintain the status quo with the poor, continue providing for them subsidies and creating more public expenditure programs as bureaucracies, of course they will vote for the Left; and what a policy! The middle class, the backbone of America, is being made poorer, and there are less millionaires in relationship to the total U.S. population today than there have been in decades. At the end of the day, it does not matter one damn bit if there are large gaps between incomes; what does matter is that all levels of income are better off than they were under the previous administration, with the people earning more in total income along with the rate of inflation continuing to decrease, the private sector thriving, and the greater focus on private small businesses in the inner cities and rural areas as opposed to erecting more public housing for the sake that the officials you champion have created more poverty. If the people are better off financially at all levels of income, have better jobs than before, have the capacity with all of these factors to buy what they need and spend on discretionary items due to a very low inflation rate, the liberal policy of using the already-historically failed ideals behind Keynsian economics will die in a blaze of futility.
At the end of the day, Paul, all Robin Hood really did was rob from those whom had taken away the hard-earned wages of the people who earned them and returned them to their respective owners.
