$100 million here a hundred million there and pretty soon we’re talking about real money goes the old saying made new on today’s Church Doctrine. Why is no one in the Fringe Media questioning President Obama and the $100 million he “pledged” to give Haiti for “relief”? At the very least our Dear Leader is pledging money that is not his to pledge which turns on its head the notion that his act is charity.
One can only engage in a charitable act with one’s own money. Back in the old days before wealth transfers became so popular, if you went to the racetrack to place a bet on John Henry to win place or show, you would reach into your pocket to get the $10 needed to make the bet. If you did not want to wager your own $10, you could pick pocket the unlucky guy next to you with the Guyabera shirt on. This used to be called stealing before Democrats got their hands on the dictionary.
Back to our friend in the Guyabera, if you took this chap to be the charitable type, you could ask him to place your bet for you with his money. This tactic will fail most of the time with most folks and 100% of the time with liberals. Those same liberals, like Obama, think charity is the act of them “pledging” someone elses money to solve whatever societal ill is today’s cause celebre, like Haiti.
Leaving aside the fraudulent statement that Obama’s “pledge” is at least termed incorrectly, will someone in the Fringe Media please ask where the President, any President divines the power to transfer millions of dollars to any cause without an appropriation from Congress......
To restore and uphold the sovereignty and rights of the individual States as guaranteed by the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
No comments:
Post a Comment