A Day in the Life of Joe Republican
“A Day in the Life of Joe Republican”
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because a liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because a liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because a liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because a liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because a liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because a liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because a liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because a liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because a liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because a liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because a liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”
And finally, a quote by Senator Ted Kennedy while speaking to the New York Liberal Party in Sept 1960:
“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label ‘liberal’? If by ‘liberal’ they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then…we are not that kind of ‘liberal.’ But if by a ‘liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people–their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties–someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘liberal’ then I’m proud to say I’m a liberal.”
The above is something an acquaintance of mine, Caleb Cadis, wrote on a Facebook link. I give him all the credit. Also, this article is not our intellectual property. All rights belong to the original author.
July 17th, 2010 at 2:50 am
I wanted to share something about the political spectrum, and somehow this seemed like the right place.
We are told that on the far Left of the political Spectrum we find Communism, which is admittedly dictatorial. But, we are told that equally to be feared is the opposite on the far Right, which is labeled Fascism. We are constantly told that we should all try to stay in the middle of the road, which is termed Democracy, but by which the establishment means Fabian (or creeping) Socialism.
What this offers is false alternatives. We are given the choice between Communism (international socialism), on one end of the spectrum, Naziism (forced national socialism) on the other end, or Fabian stealth socialism in the middle. The whole spectrum is socialist!
This is absurd. Where would you put an anarchist on the spectrum? Where would you put somebody who believes in a Constitutional Republic and a free enterprise system? He is not represented by this spectrum, yet this spectrum is used for political definitions by a probable 90% of the people of this nation.
The U.S. was a Constitutional Republic when it was founded, but for the past 100 years, we have been moving leftward across the spectrum towards total government with every piece of socialist legislation.
Communism is, by definition, total government. If you have total government, it makes little difference if you call it Communism, Fascism, Socialsim, Caesarism, or Pharaohism. It’s all pretty much the same for the people who live and suffer under it. If total government by any of it’s pseudonyms represents the far left, then the far right should represent total anarchy or no government, and the middle a Constitutional Republic of the People.
Our founding fathers revolted against the near total government of the British Monarchy. But they also knew having no government at all would be chaos. So they set up a Constitutional Republic with very little government. They knew that mankind prospers under liberty and suffers under tyranny.
Although the free enterprise system is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is the only one which could exist under a Constitutional Republic. All collectivist systems require power in government, which the constitution does not grant.
We are living in a day where our current government has little to no regard for the Constitution. Our founding fathers had no intention of allowing the government to become an instrument to steal the fruit of one man’s labor and give it to another who had not earned it. Our government was designed to be one of severely limited powers.
Karl Marx Communist manifesto calls for SOCIALISM, not for Communism. But socialism leads to Communism.
We are being socialized in America and everybody knows it.
What’s wrong with socialism? It’s a share the wealth system, right? Well, that is the theory, but is that how it works? Let’s examine the socialist countries of history according to the socialist definition of the word in world history.
These are the Communist countries of history and today (USSR, China, Cuba). The Communists themselves refer to these as socialist countries (as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Here in the reality of socialism, you have a small oligarchical clique at the top, usually no more than 3% of the total population. 3% controlling the total wealth, total production, and the very lives of the other 97%! Certainly Mr. Castro, Mr. Brezhnev, and Mr. Mao did/do not live their lives like one of the poor peasants out on the Russian steppes. But according to the socialist theory, he is supposed to do just that.
If one understands that socialism is not a share the wealth program, but in reality is a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of the super rich men like the Rockefellers, Gettys, and Rothschilds who promote socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even perfect tool of power seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but of the economic elite. The plan of the conspirator insiders is to socialize the United States, not to communize it.
How do they accomplish it? By destroying the system of our founding fathers. The Constitution fractionalized and subdivided governmental power in every way possible. Each branch of government, whether at the federal, state or local lever would never surrender their powers to centralized control. Also many phases of our lives (such as charity and education) were put almost totally out of the grasp of the politicians. Under this system a dictatorship was impossible. No segment of government could possibly amass enough power to form a dictatorship. In order to have a dictatorship one must have a single branch of government holding most of the reigns of power. Once this happens, a dictatorship is inevitable.
A dictatorship was impossible in the Constitutional Republic of the United States because the power was widely diffused. Today, as we close in on total democratic socialism, all power is being centralized at the apex of the executive branch of the federal government. This concentration of power makes a dictatorship inevitable. Those who control the president indirectly gain virtual control over the whole country.
I’m sorry if I ruin the day of Joe Republican or Johnny Democrat, but the same secret societies control both of your parties. There is not a 2-party system in the United States with Republicans and Democrats, there is a one party system with 2 factions – both controlled by the same economic elite.
June 10th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
I like your friend’s perspective, Oscar. It’s pretty accurate. Just a couple things were overlooked:
When this country was founded, the government had no right whatsoever to tax income, and take out of “Joe’s” paycheck. In an emergency provision during the World War, a liberal fought a good fight to tax income to pay for supplies for U.S. troops. But the same liberal never fought to take away the new right of the government to tax income after the war was over.
Joe’s breakfast had little to no real nutritional value because of the chemicals and hormones the liberal permitted the FDA to drown his bacon and eggs with.
Right now, a liberal is fighting to require that Joe’s car be fitted with a GPS tracking device.
Joe Republican does need a wake up call. But so does Danny Democrat, Carl Conservative, and Larry Liberal. They’re all busy looking at the “right-left” paradigm, the illusion.
Joe is cheering on the republicans as they defeat the democrats; Larry is rooting for the liberal democrats as they defeat conservative republicans.
But they both fail to realize that behind the scenes, the same puppetmaster is controlling both sides. It’s the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that they owe allegance to, not to a political party.