Freedom?

It seems like an eternity since I last blogged, but I must admit that a week off may have helped me more than I thought that it would. I still feel as if I may be getting a little stale. And I refuse to use the excuse, "I blog three times a week versus the three fourths times a week that most bloggers produce." I do apologize to the loyal readers who have grown tired of my ranting on the same issues. And thanks for your continued support of this blog and my ego.

I also must admit that I have backed off on the news a bit over the last couple weeks, so I may not be as current on some of the news stories or issues at hand. Every now and then I have to take a few steps back away from the news to "get my bearings" as my four-year old likes to say. Those who know me, know that I tend to get worked up into a good lather fairly quickly. Then I tend to lose focus on things that are often more important than the things that I read on the news sites and random blogs.

But I am "refreshed" for lack of a better word, and ready to tackle a few more issues than last week, and with a clearer head.

I am not "refreshed" in the goings on of our government. As I have stated several times, I am against large government. I want to make my own decisions and spend my own money in manners that I choose; not to be babysat by a bureaucratic gargantuan. Especially a behemoth as inept as our current government.

One of the issues that troubles me is the fact that President Obama is considering deleting the charitable contributions from our tax code. While I do not tithe to church or give to those in need so that I may write it off on my taxes, there are those who do. Take away the write-off incentive and the money will just stay in their pockets. But that isn't even my biggest concern. God can out give Bill Gates and there is no substitution for heart in philanthropy, but the underlying purpose of deleting the charitable contributions is very troublesome. It is for the purpose that the government receive the tax money instead of nonprofit organizations; and in turn the government decides how to best spend the money to better those in need. In other words, instead of giving to the church or soup kitchen so that they can distribute 95% of the received contributions to the needy in our communities, the government will now decide who is needy and how they can best spend the 22% of the donated funds to those they deem the neediest, wherever they may be. The concept stinks! The government doesn't believe that we, as individuals, have the sense, or the right, to donate to and how we see fit. And granted, our churches do a pretty lousy job of meeting the needs of our communities too often, I still prefer to deal with a more direct means of philanthropy/charity rather than funnel it through our government. Some say that doing away with charitable contributions will hurt the church, but I figure those people don't have any faith beyond what they can see. I am not concerned for the church in this manner; my faith in God will not allow it. But my faith in government and my belief in more power and freedom for the people instead of the government causes me to be adamantly against ridding us of the burden of our charitable contributions, to put it politically.

I am also concerned about the power that the government is gaining from the bailouts and such. It seems as if people are all to willing to sell their freedom and their conscious for a few bucks. That will only lead to a soulless nation when the money runs out. And a bigger, more powerful government. I was against Bush and Paulson when they initiated this bailout/handout stuff and I am against all of those who want to continue down this misguided road. Nothing is free, and someone will have to pay the piper at some point. Look at the AIG scandal and decide how well the bailout/handout money works. Now "The Government" has forced Rick Wagoner, CEO of GM to step down. I am not defending Wagoner, but I do feel that the stockholders and officers of General Motors should decide when and if Wagoner gets the boot, not the bureaucratic and out of touch government of borrow and spend. It is merely more power into the hands of the inept, and out of the hands of the people. Wagoner was only a red herring or a scapegoat or whatever animal cliche fits this scenario.

And now there is pressure for Chrysler to merge with Italian car company, Fiat, if they are to "earn" any more federal "aid". And they have thirty days in which to comply. Does this sound like an economic principle on which our country was formed? Is this a business practice that has helped make us a great economic powerhouse? I am certain that this is not the model of free enterprise or a free market. Our mixed economy is becoming less mixed and more socialized. Tim Geitner cannot master Turbo tax, but is asking for more broader powers for his branch of the government. As the government begins to own more interest in banks, insurance companies, auto makers, etc. they will begin to apply more pressure to mold those sectors and businesses into a shape that appears to be more like the image of themselves; and that image is inept, out of touch, and corrupt. But it will be done under the guise of helping the people. And it will be done with the understanding that the people aren't moral enough or smart enough to make their own decisions with their own money or for their own businesses. And so many people seem to be willing to sell our freedoms and our rights to make our own decsions, for a handful of dollars. I've seen junkies refuse to give up a lot less for a quick fix. And so we become fiscal junkies dependant on the drug of government money...not a good thing...

And this is a bipartisan effort to thwart individual freedom of choice. Bush started this mess with giving Hank Paulson an empty checkbook and fewer ideas. Congress went along for fear of losing votes in an election year. And most everyone else turned a blind eye, in order to save a few pennies. About a hundred years ago, G.K. Chesterton said,"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of the Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

But I am reminded of a quote that I use all too often lately," A government big enough to give you all you want, is big enough to take away everything that you have." Thomas Jefferson, who is probably rolling in his grave.

And if these quotes don't ring true enough to concern you, read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. And prepare to be disturbed by the common rhetoric.

But whatever you do, stand up for your freedoms. Fight against big government. Write your elected officials. Bloom where you are planted. Hold each other accountable. And remember that God is always in control. Doing these things will ease your conscious and build real strength. And there will be no piper to pay later.