opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Walter Williams
Walter E. Williams
3 Feb 2016
Isn't It Strange?

There is a letter titled "Isn't It Strange?" making the rounds in email boxes. It asks questions to which our … Read More.

26 Jan 2016
Education Insanity

Some credit Albert Einstein, others credit Benjamin Franklin, with the observation that "the definition of … Read More.

19 Jan 2016
Blacks and the Confederacy

Last July, Anthony Hervey, an outspoken black advocate for the Confederate flag, was killed in a car crash. … Read More.

Is There a Way Out?


According to a recent Fox News poll, 73 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, up 20 points from 2012. Americans sense that there's a lot going wrong in our nation, but most don't have a clue about the true nature of our problem. If they had a clue, most would have little stomach for what would be necessary to arrest our national decline. Let's look at it.

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of federal spending, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, can be described as Congress taking the earnings or property of one American to give to another, to whom it does not belong. You say, "Williams, what do you mean?" Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there's no Santa Claus or tooth fairy who gives it resources. The fact that Congress has no resources of its very own forces us to recognize that the only way Congress can give one American one dollar is to first — through intimidation, threats and coercion — confiscate that dollar from some other American through the tax code.

If any American did privately what Congress does publicly, he'd be condemned as an ordinary thief. Taking what belongs to one American to give to another is theft, and the receiver is a recipient of stolen property. Most Americans would suffer considerable anguish and cognitive dissonance seeing themselves as recipients of stolen property, so congressional theft has to be euphemized and given a respectable name. That respectable name is "entitlement." Merriam-Webster defines entitlement as "the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something." For example, I am entitled to walk into the house that I own. I am entitled to drive the car that I own. The challenging question is whether I am also entitled to what you or some other American owns.

Let's look at a few of these entitlements. More than 40 percent of federal spending is for entitlements for the elderly in the forms of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing and other assistance programs.

The Office of Management and Budget calculates that total entitlement spending comes to about 62 percent of federal spending. Military spending totals 19 percent of federal spending. By the way, putting those two figures into historical perspective demonstrates the success we've had becoming a handout nation. In 1962, military expenditures were almost 50 percent of the federal budget, and entitlement spending was a mere 31 percent. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that entitlement spending will consume all federal tax revenue by 2048.

Entitlement spending is not the only form of legalized theft. The Department of Agriculture gives billions of dollars to farmers. The departments of Energy and Commerce give billions of dollars and subsidized loans to corporations. In fact, every Cabinet-level department in Washington is in charge of handing out at least one kind of subsidy or special privilege. Most federal non-defense "discretionary spending" by Congress is for handouts.

Despite the fact that today's increasing levels of federal government spending are unsustainable, there is little evidence that Americans have the willingness to do anything about it. Any politician who'd even talk about significantly reining in unsustainable entitlement spending would be run out of town. Any politician telling the American people they must pay higher taxes to support handout spending, instead of concealing spending through deficits and running up the national debt and inflation, would also be run out of town. Can you imagine what the American people would do to a presidential candidate who'd declare, as James Madison did in a 1794 speech to the House of Representatives, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government"?

If we are to be able to avoid ultimate collapse, it's going to take a moral reawakening and renewed constitutional respect — not by politicians but by the American people. The prospect of that happening may be whistlin' "Dixie."

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



24 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... I might begin this comment or end it with the same five words: Liar, Liar; pants on fire...
Since you clearly know nothing of morality, property, or property law; let me clue you in...When the people through their government let out part of the commonwealth they are fully within their rights; and when they take it back again they are fully within their rights...The commonwealth is inalienable, otherwise nothing would stop any people in any state on the basis of their property from declaring themselves and their property separate from the commonwealth, as has been tried before in the court of war long ago...
What people buy when they buy property, is certain rights in that property called property rights...With those rights they might do as they please with the property within limits, and exclude people or include people as they see fit...This should not be confused with the ability to exclude the whole people from their property, as we all have an interest in the well being of the commonwealth...
The price people pay for a piece of the commonwealth is by way of a fee, which is a Feudal term that still shows up in many title transfers...That fee establishes your right, but does not clear you of obligation for the society that provides for the military and legal defense of your privilage, as property rights are... You must pay, and if one without property or hope of having property must lay his life on the line, and give his faithful service for the protection of your privilages, do not think it immoral that you should give through taxes for the support of the commonwealth...
I understand you and your naive conception of property, that if it is owned, it is owned free and clear, and so taxation is theft... Hardly...The payment of an obligation is not theft, though it may be a sacrifice...Not one person is equipped or armed for the defense of even an inch of the commonwealth if the people decide it is better as commonweath outright than in private hands... Some people have more property than they can span in a day, more than they can shoot a gun over, more than they will ever need or make good use of; and for everyone who owns much, many are excluded...Considered rationally; if only one percent 'owned' all of the commonwealth, would the commonwealth be less obligated in the support of the entire population??? Make the moral argument, and also the rational argument for why the people should starve while their commonwealth languishes in the hands of a few Junkers unwilling to support the society that grants them their privilages???
The reason entitlements are called entitlements, is because this people hold the ultimate title to this commonwealth, and removed from it cannot be denied their rights in it; and you may try, and your friends may try with your encouragement, but the attempt to deny the people their rights in their land will prove fatal to you, as it well should... What you encourage is not just criminal, but criminal treason... You are treading a dangerous path for the prospect of slight gain...
Thanks ...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:26 PM
Blathering again, eh Sweeney? The very fact that you confuse entitlements with "rights" shows just how bizarrely off the deep (left) end you are. Fortunately, you can't do any damage with all the time you spend on this site, and Prof. Williams certainly has better things to do than read your spewing.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:44 PM
Mr. Sweeney, sir, if I may, sir, please tell me how much land, food and other items a person should own. Or do you believe in the concept of ownership at all? I don't own any land, sir, and I don't own a house. My newest car is 14 years old and has 200,000 miles on it. Should I, too, sir, shake my fist at those who have more possessions than I? Is it immoral of me, sir, to focus more on spiritual matters and instead to be more concerned about why our children feel more compelled to murder each other in increasing numbers? Dr. Allende seized the copper mines; he seized the banks; he instructed the peasants to seize the private property of others. Hyperinflation soared to 500 percent. Women poured into the streets, banging their pots and pans in rebellion over the new social order. Should I try your path, sir, then I must become embittered at those that have more than I. Once I have acquired enough material items--whatever the amount you judge to be fair--then I suppose I must focus my anger on those who have acquired greater knowledge than I. Or is there a particular order of jealousies that you recommend? The premise of your argument is rooted in a foolish paradox--you shake your fist at materialism, while passionately longing for its embrace. You should pursue the tenets of Christ, be thankful for what you do have and put your talents to work for the Kingdom. Spiritual warfare is the greater concern. No amount of land, food or material items will pacify the growing number of demonic spirits across our land. Guns were widely available 100 years ago, but you did not find children walking into their schools and attempting to slaughter as many of their classmates as possible before turning the gun on themselves.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Tom Quimby
Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:48 PM
Re: Maggie Lawrence;... Absolutely; entitlements are rights... This people own this commonwealth, and the privilages they give in property are not rights at all... And if you do not believe me; then try me; because before this people lets you starve them out while calling them thieves for demanding their rights, you will yourself have your head on a pike... The difference between rights and privilages is quite simple... You can live without a privilage, but you cannot live without a right, and our Declaration of Independence says life is a right, and an inalienable right; and this is certainly true, and all that follows from it is also true... If people cannot live without their country, it cannot be sold off from under them by any amount of corrupt politicians so that it will stay sold, while people die for the want of it... There has never been a country ever that did not have taxes, and even under Feudalism, people paid with produce for their rights in the land... But under Feudalism, no one could be said to own the land at all, and though we think of Kings as owners; they were not, but they could exact taxes, and mostly lived off their own estates upon which they might kill people more easily than deny their entitlements...
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about, or you would not even consider ownership of realestate as other than a recent institution... Nor would you consider taxation as theft... People do not cry to pay their tithe, but that was originally an old and middle English word for a government tax laid on the people for the support of the priesthood, which in turn supported the royal prerogatives...If you do not like all that your tax goes to buy; then join the crowd... But deny the people their rights in order for the wealthy to enjoy privilages, and you invite civil war and your own destruction...
I am telling you; that the people's ownership of this whole land by capture was settled when this country was young by the first Warren Court, and I can cite the case... It does not matter what ideas people have formed in the meantime, because if we are a democracy, which is a point the right wants to contest, then the people are the law so long as they make their will known...

If you are so concerned about theft, then start by giving the blacks all that was stolen from them through slave labor... Give the country back to the Native Americans... Give the country back to all who had it stolen by way of profits taken out of wage labor... Give it to the children of those who died for their country just to have fools say: you must be mistaken because Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it to the bank... There is just one course for all who follow your way of thinking, and it is slavery because you have not the pride to be honestly poor...
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:17 PM
Re: Tom Quimby;... Ownership is fine; but taxes should force property to be productive in private hands or have it return to the commonwealth... If, for example, you read about Lincoln's time, property was relatively cheap, and labor was expensive because taxes forced the farmers to be productive, and that required labor... The situations by which the great part of peasant farmers have been driven from the land are no more fair than taxation... If you look for example at the old South, the Ante Bellum South, you get a really false picture from the movies and novels... The traders in slaves and in cotton the middle men and those who controlled the markets drained every bit of wealth out of the South...And do not forget the bankers who depreciated slaves for the purposes of loans that considered the life span of a black slave in the deep south as little over ten years average...
Per person, the South had so much less than the North on every imaginable scale, literacy, paved roads, libraries, schools, etc... One person from the North correctly observed that bad morals equal bad roads, and what have we today??? Those who consistently want to drive down wages should look at what it did for the South, because it is hard to beat a slave for low wages... But; as Lincoln observed in the Lincoln Douglas debates: The South is no place for a poor white man to remove to, but to removed from... It was not for taxes, because even during their rebellion, with their government fighting for their privilages they still resisted taxation... Well; these champions of low wages, who think they are necessary because general low wages have destroyed the domestic market, which has resulted from our competition with slaves employed by our own hard earned capital, find they have cut the guts out of their own economy, and that these lowered wages will not support the government or government services, let alone support those who have been put on the street by their bone headed principals of economy; and so they cry: theft...
Look at what the income tax was made to do... It was only supposed to affect 11 to 13% of the population... The small farmers knew the bankers and middle men had them by the nads, and were seeking relief; but as soon as the rich had the income tax, they turned it against the working people until they were bled... The wealthy have grown more wealthy and it is not because they are paying their share for their privilages... More and more they seek to ensconse their wealth behind a wall of tax law.. They want to end capital gains tax... They pay half as much on unearned as earned income...And they want to end the inheritance tax to protect their wealth forever; but when wealth is made hereditary, so is poverty...
What we need is tax on wealth to make the rich hustle to keep it... We could certainly use better patent law to reward those who actually invent..But as in Lincoln's day, the best thing is to let anyone have the commonwealth who will increase its value, and then enjoy the value without thinking to hold the commonwealth forever... It belongs to the people, and it should be returned to them through taxes, and then it could be easily had by all who want to invest their sweat in it... Just like you, I own my house in name only... The bank owns my house, and I pay them, and pay taxes... But interest is a more cruel thief than taxes, and it is ubiquitous... Nothing gets done without a mortgage on it, and it is slavery; but the reason no one is beching about that is because the banks and the rich are the ones who are behind the tax rebellion...If they had to face the consequences of their bleeding of the society they would not have much money...
The problem is two fold... The poor are taxed too much; and the rich are taxed too little, and so the taxes the poor pay relieve the rich of the need of paying tax... Were it not for the general failure of the economy which is not in any true sense of the word, an economy, there would not be so many in need of reliance on the commonwealth which they would rather support than live off of...We have very little social movility in this country, and the means of changing that; Education of the poor, and taxes on the wealth is not happening...Seriously; I am for everyone having what they earn, but that is impossible when so many have, without earning a part of it, and then will not pay tax on it...
Comment: #5
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:58 PM
Re: Tom Quimby;...If we had ever had democracy, and that democracy had worked it would have always set as one of its tasks the return of all private wealth to the commonwealth...It is impossible to have democracy, which is political socialism with all taken as roughly equal while the economy which is no economy is bent on making all people unequal... If De Toqueville could talk of the easy commerce and conversation between rich man American and poor in his day, it was because the amount of wealth difference between them was not so extreme...
We must remember that while Mr. Quimby now practices economy, that economy as we know it enjoys a freedom peoplle do not, boardering on anarchy...And while this anarchy may once have been acceptable given the extent and natural wealth of this country; now that all that wealth has been spoiled or wasted, the people must practice the greatest economy so that the rich can enjoy their anarchy... Economy means: House Management... Our economy rejects all management... It is more like organzied crime than an economy...
We can see today where Mr. Cruz is trying to block a candidate to the board of the FCC if he will not swear to allow the rich who want to libel and milign candidates to the limit, and tilt every election in their direction and hide behind the mask of annonymity...The power of wealth over the population is extreme...Their power of our government is nearly absolute...Democrat and republican share the same economic principals, and even if false cannot be pried out of them with a pinch bar...
All of these people take their society for granted... Having grown up with it, they think it will always stand...Many societies have come and gone holding the same thought as valid, and because they could not grasp their social forms objectively they could not change them... We having them for bad examples, and having greater understanding of the way societies work, when they work, should give us the freedom and power to change our society in a meaningful fashion...
I expect to change nothing from without, as Mr. Allende did... The power, even of a majority is not democracy which depends upon consensus to succeed... We in America, cut all aid to that government, but we continued with military aid as a means of subverting that class to our cause....The internationalizing of capitalism has grown more pernicious since then, and we are one hitch point of a web that ensnares the world... We might have revolution here only because we could live within our means, if not well...Most countries cannot do that, and the world needs to think internationaly... And you can't shove revolution down any throat...
People have to be willing to go along, and with a new society and government, the people have to get the goods they need and are promised...We may be united in our disappointment with our society, but we are deeply divided over possible solutions... It would be cool if people remembered that forms can be made, and have the meaning wrung out of them over time like water out of a rag... Jefferson talked of forms in the declaration, and we use the word all the time and correctly; but unconsciously.... To realize our power we have to only understand what we are dealing with, and what we are doing with it... An understanding of forms give the objective grasp of reality we need to act consciously and correctly...And you still cannot force the issue...
Look at the moral forms in the Preamble... Those are still good and honorable goals... The social form of our government has not reached those goals.... What can we do but change our social form???
If it were possible to change people it would already have happened.... Instead the whole course of human history is the story of changing forms, because people change what they can in order to adapt, because we cannot evolve...
Comment: #6
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:44 AM
Sweeney, could you expand on these thought?
Comment: #7
Posted by: Tom
Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:33 AM
Re: Marc, TRUTH

Re: Sweeney, proof positive your words don't fall on deaf ears.
Comment: #1
Posted by: morgan
Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:57 PM
Comment: #8
Posted by: Tom
Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:11 AM
Re: Tom;... Ya; but who ever said blathering had it about right... A seed won't grow on a brick, but I put it out there anyway to make people think... I have a lot of faith in the ability of humanity to figure things out, but I do not want things to get as bad as they might before they are forced to figure...
Those who signed the Declaration of Independence could think formally, and consciously knew they were trying to change their form of government... Why then do we try to change each other when the whole idea is to change the form of our society to accomodate all our various ways of being Americans??? People do not change, no matter how many die or are killed, and I presume it is because we cannot, except superficially... But; we can learn the knowledge essential to our understanding of what humanity can change, by way of adaptation, and that is what I am pushing...
Subjectively, we are all individuals and are all problems to each other... We need to objectify the problems we face rather than dehumanize each other by objectifying those we disagree with...
I am not an object, and I am no ones enemy... I do not treat those on the right as objects that can be rolled under or pushed aside... I will talk a subject to death before giving up on the idea of some one getting it; but what is the alternative???
Comment: #9
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:07 PM
Re: Tom;... I could expand on those thoughts... I could write a book, but my ideas are hardly original...What they are is more or less complete... My reading has covered a wide range of human experience and thought, but I have little formal education, and it is nice when trying to advance a train of thought to have the power of some Alphabets by your name, and PHD would be cool, but practically a million miles away...
I wonder what I might have done with my life IF I had learned what I consider the basics of philosophy first... It is sad to stumble into the knowledge you should have begun with -at an advanced age... It is very much the fault of our educational system, and mine, at the start was above average... People expected me to learn over the impediment of a learning disability... What I needed to learn, was how to learn... Forms, concepts, ideas all represent knowledge, and that is what philosophers are forever talking about: how to judge, how to classify and catagorize knowledge... I wonder what my life might have been like if from the start I had been given the means to organize what I knew as I now organize my library...
It does not matter whether my ideas are correct or not... I am not a cappo for the tyranny of ideas... But I do lose my patience with people who barely think, either because they are lazy and want others to think for them, or because they have never been prepared in school for the rational consideration of any issue... But such are what we are given to work with... I learned long ago that you have to build a building with the hands you have... You can wish all you want for your dream team, and that team never had room for me... You have to work with the crew you have, and utilize them where they are most able... The same is true of the future... We have to build it with the people we have for the people we have...
Forget about perfection... Forget about ideals... Our so called ideal government is so far short of perfection that it cannot be imagined so, but when people are compared to perfection they always come up short... Forget perfection... Let's find something we can all agree on and all live with, that will work for some time...It is a mistake to build forms for eternity when people are mere mortals... It is always a positive injustice to say that people must change because the form cannot be changed... The reverse is absolutly true... Forms are always changed, and people never change because they cannot...And I do not mean that in any sort of bad way... We can learn; but we still have to eat and and wear clothes and find shelter..Who can change those facts is God...
Comment: #10
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:47 PM
I repeat my advice re Mr. Sweeney: Ignore him. Don't read him, and don't reply.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Phillip Schearer
Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:59 AM
Re: Phillip Schearer;... You remind me of the man who said: Take my advice; I'm not using it...
Comment: #12
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:19 PM
I agree with Prof. Williams that "it's going to take a moral reawakening...", but it's hard to be sure just what morality he means. I can't remember him ever discussing his religious beliefs explicitly, but my long-time impression is that he is a traditional Christian. But Christian morality glorifies the needy. The Left takes Christian ethics, strips out the supernatural, and what remains is the welfare state. The moral reawakening Prof. Williams hopes for is only to be found in Ayn Rand's reality-based moral code, but I've never seen any sign that Prof. Williams, as a Christian, will ever agree with Objectivism.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Phillip Schearer
Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:23 PM
Re: Phillip Schearer; morality cannot be expressed as a code, as that would require rationalization when morality is at heart, irrational... It is wrong to expect all good to grow out of morality... What Jews do to Arabs, for example, and what Arabs do to Jews is driven by morality which is that tie to family, relatives, friends and community... But, clearly this is not the only force in people's lives... As Aristotle might have it, beside ethics which as character or custom represents ones community in each individual, there is pathos- which as we know from our word sympathy is that feeling of connection we have with all of humanity...
Rand could only be more wrong than Mr. Williams who is always couching moral arguments inside of economic arguments, that is, trying to view the irrational in rational terms... Rand on the other hand misses entirely the key element of ethics- in community... She forever acts as though the individual sprouts fully formed from society the way Athena rose on the head of Zeus like a pimple... There is no such thing as a human individual, and if there were, it would be like every other, because like all individual bricks, they are identical...We are not exactly identical because we are not individual except in the sense that not one of us can be divided further... We all reflect imperfectly the culture we have recieved as knowledge, which is to say: as Truth...We are each the products of our culture and in turn give our culture to another generation unless we live for a moment as Rand's individual, and give nothing to society, and take all the credit due to society for what we have achieved...Even if you base this notion on the metaphysic of all men created equal, this is false on its face...We are born and not created, and we are equal only conceptually, since we share a common identity as Human...Seeing that we are born as a link in a long chain of life, and recieve almost all we will ever know through culture, there is no basis for the notion of the individual or of an individual based morality, which since it denies the relationship between the person and his community is no morality at all...
Clearly, Mr. Williams should leave off talking about morality... He is only one dimensional...He is short sighted and penny wise... He has no grasp of nation as family and community for which no sacrifice is too great... He is aware of the units but blind to the whole...
If the ideas of Mr. Williams were taken to their conclusion we would have no society... If the Ideas of Rand were played out, we would have no humanity...All of morality is a natural relationship between people and their community; and when you cannot find the logic of it, the bond is broken between the self and the society so that the person may live on for a time, but cut off from society and humanity, existence through the immortality of society is impossible...Life is a puny part of the whole...Life is nothing cut off from the whole... If we live to soak up the love and knowledge of society in order to pass it on; if we live to be nurtured guarded and then to nurture and guard, then we do more than live, because we then exist... I prefer to exist, to live as something larger, to give as I was given to, and to care as I was cared for, and as I honor the great people of the past, I expect that my reward is my honor..
Comment: #14
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:38 AM
Thank you, professor Williams for having the integrity and courage to speak the truth. You've said what needs to be said even if most Americans do not want to hear it. Possibly our descent into progressive liberalism will be recognized by more as we feel the effects of our health care law as each and every one of us will. I have accepted my responsibility to support those who cannot by my actions and pocketbook all of my life and will continue to do so. However, we have become a nanny state in a few short years and the balance is now irrevocably slanted. I am very sad that the country that once was a great and generous nation is now on a spiral downward with no solution in sight.
Comment: #15
Posted by: jmoen
Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:07 PM
Re: jmoen... If you keep the people of the United State powerless in their own affairs, and that results in widespread poverty and hopelessness, what choices have you but nanny state, or terror state??? The people are powerless, in a perpetual state of tutelage, deliberately kept ignorant of the facts and their rights, and because they are ignorant, can be kept politically powerless...If you dispossess such people, you must still care for them since you have removed from them their ability to self support... You can try starving them out, or walling them in; but sooner or later their numbers will grow so great, and their part in the economy will grow so insignificant that the support of them by the rich will be impossible or will simply take so much of their wealth that they will destroy the society rather than feed the starving... And you see it beginning... The people are hungry... The food banks are empty... Those who try to help are increasing desperate, and all while profits soar...
If we were a democracy the people could do for themselves, and their will would be law... If that were the situation, I am certain that many who now hate the Nanny State would wish it back, and dream it happy... It is not happy, and it is demoralizing, and it is pointing toward the end of your society; but for the moment, the natural conservatism of the people, the future fear that prevents change is holding the people in check... When we get to the point of bread riots, and when the government openly admits its bankruptcy; the end will be at hand... And I for one welcome this...
Rome had welfare too, and in conjunction with tyranny... It did not make the country healthy as democracy would have, but slowly drained it of its morals, and made the people less able to act in their own defense...If the reactionaries succeed in shutting down the government, and breaking it, it is better sooner than later... Only hard and cruel necessity will teach the people their power... For the state to try paliate the abuses of capitalism only forces people to suffer those abuses far longer than necessary...
Comment: #16
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Nov 1, 2013 5:57 AM

Comment: #17
Posted by: Tom
Fri Nov 1, 2013 9:38 AM
Re: poster who calls himself "Tom" ,

Yes, Sweeney has the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of and I'll second this grammatical error, because I, too have the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of. Now run along little troll.
Comment: #18
Posted by: morgan
Fri Nov 1, 2013 12:59 PM
Re: morgan;... It was only metaphore... The rights acts like so many larvae now, feasting on the wounds of a dying society... If they want to play king of the corpse, why should I care??? It is only that the game of division, of exploitation, of slavery; and all it takes: The demeaning of American Citizans and the denial of their rights- injures, and weakens us...
Will they kill us to control us??? Will they cling to their ideal of capitalism while in its failure it drags government and people into the pit with it... Government has been feeding capitalism from the breast of the people.... Capitalism has been feeding itself from the other breast and now the people are dry, having nothing left for each other, for government, or for capital...
The danger of the right is clear... Like the nazis, they talk now and will act later... They are like the South that made its intentions clear long before they acted... People share with the rattle snake their best quality: They rattle before they strike... The right is rattling, demeaning the people, the poor, and all those who push reason...You cannot describe the poor in the most scurilous terms, and then be expected to pick up their support... The alternative is for the poor to remind the right who actually owns the commonwealth by taking it back, or for them to shackle themselves into slavery in the name of amity...
They are Larvae in the mythological sense, of evil spirits... They have been warned by the old testament prophets they never seem to read, and they can see how Israel weakened itself before its enemies....When it comes down to it, they want you to read the book they never read, and want you to see only what they see in it...
Comment: #19
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Nov 2, 2013 5:03 AM
Re: poster who calls himself "Tom" ,

Yes, Sweeney has the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of and I'll second this grammatical error, because I, too have the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of. Now run along little troll.

Comment: #20
Posted by: Tom
Sun Nov 3, 2013 9:19 AM
Re: poster who calls himself "Tom" ,

Yes, Sweeney has the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of and I'll second this grammatical error, because I, too have the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of. Now run along little troll.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Tom
Sun Nov 3, 2013 9:19 AM
Re: poster who calls himself "Tom" ,

Yes, Sweeney has the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of and I'll second this grammatical error, because I, too have the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of. Now run along little troll.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Tom
Sun Nov 3, 2013 9:20 AM
Re: poster who calls himself "Tom" ,

Yes, Sweeney has the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of and I'll second this grammatical error, because I, too have the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of. Now run along little troll.

Read the face of hate and true evil.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Tom
Sun Nov 3, 2013 9:27 AM
Of whom else do you proclaim your right to crush and destroy? Give us a little glimpse of the future you plan for us all.

"Re: poster who calls himself "Tom" ,

"Yes, Sweeney has the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of and I'll second this grammatical error, because I, too have the right to call for you to be crushed and disposed of. Now run along little troll."

Posted by Morgan"

Just want to know where your rights end and my nose begins, or should I say my neck, you ultra liberal hater. I am Tom, you don't sound like Morgan. You are a hater calling for the death of others. Carried away by hate, aren't you? Be civil, isn't that the liberal creed, show empathy, isn't that at the core of every liberal's soul? Crush and dispose of people, isn't that the right given to every liberal? You must be so proud of your words.

Comment: #24
Posted by: Tom
Sun Nov 3, 2013 9:37 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Walter E. Williams
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 7 Feb 2016
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 7 Feb 2016

19 Mar 2008 Peace-loving Muslims

21 Apr 2010 Taxes and Voting

27 Feb 2008 Africa: A Tragic Continent