Lessons from the Special Session...
While all the lessons of the Special Session have yet to be learned, there are some we can begin to ponder.
Thomas Jefferson may have warned us about the danger in allowing the public to vote themselves funds from the public coffers, but few evidently listened. We have so many special interests dependent on "government funds". That term is a laugh, such funds do not actually exist because "we the people' are the ones making the money that the government takes by sheer force. Why does government keep doing this? As former Governor Ehrlich used to say "because they can". There are so many ways strong-arm tactics can keep any legislator in line. Threaten their committee assignments, or a pet pork project in their district, and they will submit. Give them a bone, allow them to appear outraged on one point, while they give in on another. Play the game. Don't dare to really cut spending where needed, instead threaten to cut it where it will hurt the most. Then increase it even more, getting more poor suckers addicted. As long as there are more oxes to gore, you can agree to not gut them if they secretly, silently, give in.
Harder, but not impossible! Those who submitted rather than lose their committee assignments will not have a committee to sit on if they are thrown out of office, forcefully, on their ears... (or is that "rears"?)! They will never cut spending and live within their means, unless you are mean to them, and cut their spending. Remember who were the enemies of the people, and of the people's wallets, do not ever forget! Fire them from their part-time job as legislators! Throw them off their ill-gotten thrones!
King O'Malley may think he is calling the shots, but we still can depose him and his like-minded fellow-travelers. He is so fond of a word that I am so sick and tired of his abuse of, the word "Consenus". I found a great definition of that C-Word from Curtis Dahlgren's Lefty Lexicon, Blarney Words 101...
<<"Consensus" is a word like candy to them. They don't need a majority to rule, but if they happen to have a consensus once in awhile, it's like frosting on the cake. Taxation then is as easy as stealing candy from a baby. People like to perceive themselves as being on the "winning" side, so some people can be manipulated by P.R. and mass-psychology into "agreeing" with the Loony Left.
Etymologically, the word "consensus" originated from the phrase "feeling together." It is related to the verb "to consent," so the Left goes about political campaigning much like a suitor pursuing a mate: Emotion is both the ends and the means; substance doesn't matter. Results don't matter either; "GOOD INTENTIONS" DO.
Besides, many pursued potential mates prefer the "bad boys" anyway. Logic and reason be damned. It works the same way in Politics 101. All it takes is a concentrated media blitz on the topic du jour to make the liberal position sound like the "mainstream." Anyone outside the mainstream, in the wide, calm part of the river is considered a "fringer" or "extremist."
A supposed "consensus" ends all debate before the debate even begins, and "correct thought" trumps "free speech." >>
That explains Martin's fascination with the word. With it, there is no need for prolonged, public debate.
Next Election, will he find there is no need for him and his minions either? Remember, people, remember!!
ADDENDUM: Thoughts to ponder...
Is it a coincidence that this is from Blarney 101, when our Irish Gov is trying to plunder our pot 'o gold?
Is it mere chance that there is talk of potential mates and bad boys, when the O'Gov is touted as so "hot"?
(I don't know what they see in him, wasn't Bobby E. seen as studly, too?? If you are going to vote on the basis of body type, please do not vote- stay home!)
Is it odd that there is "no need for debate", and much of the recent General Assembly debate was behind closed doors?
